A multi‐hierarchical “Design for X” framework for accelerating circular economy [original]

3rd PLATE Conference

September 18 – 20, 2019

Berlin, Germany

Nils F. Nissen

Melanie Jaeger-Erben (eds.)

Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin

Franconi, Alessio; Badalucco, Laura; Peck, David; Nasr, Nabil: A multi-hier-

archical “Design for X” framework for accelerating circular economy .

In: Nissen, Nils F.; Jaeger-Erben, Melanie (Eds.): PLATE – Product Lifetimes

And The Environment : Proceedings, 3rd PLATE CONFERENCE, BERLIN,

GERMANY, 18 – 20 September 2019. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU

Berlin, 2021. pp. 257 – 265. ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9 (online). https://doi.

org/10.14279/depositonce-9253.

This article – except for quotes, fi gures and where otherwise noted – is

licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0).

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

257

3rd PLATE 2019 Conference

Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

A Multi-hierarchical “Design for X” Framework for Accelerating

Circular Economy

Franconi, Alessio(a); Badalucco, Laura(a); Peck, David(b); Nasr, Nabil(c)

a) University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy

b) Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

c) Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, United States of America

Keywords: Design for X; Collaborative Design; Interdisciplinary Approach; Circular Framework;

Design Tool.

Abstract: In the past, many frameworks have been conceived in order to support companies and

their designers to develop sustainable products. In the circular economy, however, these frameworks

no longer appear to be sufficient, due to the difficulty in identifying multiple design strategies for the

different product life cycles across time dimensions. By adopting a Design for X (DfX) approach, this

paper develops a multi-hierarchical DfX framework that allows designers to incorporate different

strategies to better address product life cycles. This framework could facilitate the further

development of a more comprehensive and interdisciplinary DfX tool. A key part of the method

deployed is an interview guide approach, where five experts from across academia and industry, were

interviewed. This qualitative research draws on their diverse expertise and generates an intersectoral

link between different fields. Moreover, the DfX tool can be used to highlight relationships between

different circular economy strategies, by providing insights into how interdisciplinary design decisions

influence each other. Such an approach could allow designers to effectively visualize a bigger picture

and positively influence the application and acceleration of the circular economy.

Introduction

Circular product design is a complex and

interdisciplinary process. At the early design

stages, a variety of designers must make

decisions not only about the first lifespan of the

product, but also forecasting where, when, for

whom and how the product will be reintegrated

in the following life cycles, as well as mitigate

concomitant objectives in business,

engineering, product and service design.

Indeed, in contrast to today's linear economy,

circular economy (CE) presupposes a constant

resourcing cycle aimed at preserving natural

assets, maximizing the use of natural capital

and decreasing human impacts on nature

(McDonough, et al., 2010; Stahel, 2010;

Bakker, et al., 2014). This new vision implies a

substantial change not only on the product

design, but in the entire organizational system

of our society. Hence, it is de facto unlikely

that an optimal transition will occur if there is

an imbalance between disciplines and the

system could not be considered as a holistic,

complex structure, to be designed and

managed (Murray, et al., 2017).

The collaboration between so many fields has

always been fundamental to respond to the

exponential complexity of systemic thinking for

sustainability. Some frameworks, such as

Ecodesign Strategy Wheel (Brezet, H., & Van

Hemel, C. 1998), Product-system lifecycle

(Vezzoli, et al., 2008), Whole System Design

(Charnley, 2010) are well known to take in

consideration the bigger picture for sustainable

and interdisciplinary decision-making. However,

these frameworks tend to neglect the different

design approaches for the different life cycles of

the product, which are essential factors to

consider in designing for the CE. For this

reason, it is necessary to review these existing

frameworks on which the design is often based

today and reframe a new and up-to-date

framework that also tackles multiple loops.

The first challenge to develop a

comprehensive framework among so many

variables is to determine a common

terminology (Sauvé et al. 2016). Many

researchers, published works, conferences

and tools make use of the Design for X (DfX)

approach to make designers aware about the

implications of their design decisions on later

life cycle phases of a product. In these

258

3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

Franconi A., Badalucco L., Peck D., Nasr N.

A multi-hierarchical “Design for X” framework for accelerating CE

activities, ‘X’ is used as a variable which

represents a specific design strategy. Huang

(1996), defined DfX as an “imperative practice

in product development to achieve

simultaneous improvements in products and

processes”. Many DfX approaches have also

been addressed in the present CE literature

(Bakker et al., 2014; Go, et al., 2015; Van

Weelden, et al., 2016, De los Rios, et al., 2017

and Moreno, et al., 2017). Therefore, the DfX

can arguably be used to map a circular

approach, to a sequence of detailed

interdisciplinary strategies, acting as a flexible

pattern to be applied according to the circular

design requirements.

In this paper, through the theoretical application

of DfXs, the authors present a framework by

which it is possible to hierarchy circular

strategies that cover the life cycle of products

across temporal dimensions. Furthermore, this

paper introduces how the framework could be

used for the future development of an

interactive and open-sourced design tool.

Methodology

To build robust bases capable of supporting

the complexity, information volume,

overlapping concepts and the wide scope of

design disciplines, a methodology has been

structured, in line with Friedman (2003) that

comprises of four steps outlined below.

Friedman states that theoretical construction

cannot be based on practice. Indeed, it is

questionable how critical and systematic

thinking can be established based on case

studies, that meet specific contextual,

productive and temporal requirements. Practice

can, however, provide a validation of the

questions that were created via theory

(Friedman, 2003). Theory can be based on a

general structure that can be revised,

reformulated and reorganized, according to

very precise logic, allowing one to develop a

resilient theoretical framework (Webster, et al.,

2002).

The research shown in this paper therefore

used this theoretical framework consisting of

four steps: (1) Discover - an exploratory review

of the literature, after which a (2) Define -

concept map was defined and developed (3)

Develop - three initial hypothesis and finally

(4) Validate - the hypothesis was validated

through 5 guided interviews (Fig. 1). There are

iteration loops from step 4 back to steps 1, 2

and 3. The structure deployed forms part of a

larger ongoing PhD research activity and

requires further steps in order to develop the

final PhD work.

Figure 1. Methodological steps.

Discover - Exploratory Literature Review

To understand and define the main DfX

strategies and try to create continuity between

them in the various phases of the design

process, it was decided to undertake a first

research on the most common design practices

with respect to the circular economy according

to Webster, et al., (2002). The tool used for this

research was Google Scholar, the keywords

used in multiple combinations were "Design

Theory", "Design Disciplines", "Circular Product

Design", "Circular Economy", "Design Process",

"Systemic Design ","Design for X", and "Design

for Collaboration". All the terms were first

searched individually and then combined using

AND as a conjunction between the different

keywords. Along with the material found

through the review of the literature, some texts

reputed fundamental were added (such as

Brezet, et al., 1998, Vezzoli et al., 2008; Stahel,

2010 and Nasr, et al., 2018). All literature

generated was considered.

Define - Concept Map

To group and view the findings of the

exploratory literature review, the concept map

methodology was used. This methodology

allows the interdependencies of the different

concepts to be connected through logical

reasoning (Novak, et al., 2008). Because the

goal of the research was to define an

interdisciplinary framework, the concept map

developed around the word "Design for

Collaboration". Subsequently, to give

importance to all the design phases, the word

“Design for Collaboration” was connected with

every single phase of the life cycle of the

closed-cycle product readapted based on the

frameworks of Brezet, et al. (1997), and

Vezzoli, et al. (2008).

This step helped to connect the main influences

of different design disciplines with each phase

of the product life cycle. For some of the

phases of the life process of the product a DfX

was assigned in order to establish the possible

disciplines which are able to deal with this

259

3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

Franconi A., Badalucco L., Peck D., Nasr N.

A multi-hierarchical “Design for X” framework for accelerating CE

design phase. The map presented in Fig. 2

does not intend to be a map that includes all

the strategies identified, but only an analysis of

key aspects.

Figure 2. Concept map.

From Fig. 2, a series of observations can be

made.

 Some DfXs can be applied by different

disciplines / designers simultaneously

(Kuo, et al., 2001)

 Some DfXs are applicable exclusively

in specific disciplines / designers

 Some DfXs are the consequence of

hierarchical decisions (Huang, 1996)

 Some DfXs are mutually non-exclusive

 Some DfXs are mutually exclusive

 Some DfXs are complementar (Van

Weelden, et al., 2016; De los Rios, et

al., 2017; Moreno, et al., 2017)

 Some DfXs are applicable across time

dimensions

 Some DfXs follow different processes

in different contexts and times

 Some DfXs are applicable in single

and different phases

 Some DfXs can be applied

consequently

 Some DfXs can be applied in parallel

 Some DfXs can take effect after the

first loop of the product

 Some DfXs may progressively

increase or decrease in effectiveness

in different loops

 Several DfXs have variable

effectiveness on different products

The synthetic DfXs list of observations highlight

the complexity of the hierarchization.

Consequently, it was hypothesized that a

hierarchy of DfXs should follow a multi-

hierarchical approach. While a detailed

verification of the entire conceptualization

presented in Fig. 2 goes beyond the scope of

this study, this has been useful to formulate

three hypotheses which are the interpretation

that resulted from it.

Develop - Hypothesis

Three distinct hierarchies for DfX are

conceivable. The first hypothesis relates to the

hierarchy of the priority orders of the ‘X’

strategies. For example, with a view to

implement a design strategy for refurbishing

(X1) it is essential, in sequential order, work on

design for disassembly (X2) and then more in

detail on design for maintenance (X3), etc. (Van

den Berg, et al., 2015), respectively X1, X2, X3.

‘X’ may vary in detail in the applied design

strategy. The X1 determines the main circular

strategy or in other words Maintenance, Reuse,

Redistribute, Refurbish, Remanufacture, and

Recycle, whereas X2, X3 the possible design

strategies to reach X1. Hence, the first

hypothesis is:

To achieve the first degree DfX (X1) a

hyperbolic tree hierarchy diagram, that

describes each sub DfX strategy, can be used

(Fig. 3).

Figure 3. DfX hierarchization based on degrees of

priority and design specifications.

Companies organize product development

based on the phases of product lifecycle. The

choices made during each phase (P) of the

process can influence the subsequent phases

(Cataldo et al., 2006). In order to achieve X1, a

variety of designers, in different design phases,

should coordinate their own DfXs effectively

260

3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

Franconi A., Badalucco L., Peck D., Nasr N.

A multi-hierarchical “Design for X” framework for accelerating CE

using specific X2 and X3. Hence, the second

hypothesis is:

Through a circular life cycle phase diagram, it

is possible to position any DfX for each phase

(Fig. 4).

Figure 4. DfX hierarchization based on the

phases of the product life cycle.

CE aims at recovering products for many loops

by using as less energy and materials as

possible for each loop (Bakker et al. 2014). In

business terms, the life cycle of the product

should last for many loops (L) by using specific

combinations of strategies in order to make the

business last longer. With that aim, designers

should foresee which X1 should be applied for

each product lifetime (L1, L2, L3, etc.) in order

to then decide in a hierarchical configuration

X2 and X3. Hence, the third hypothesis is:

In a spiral loop diagram, DfXs can be applied

over multiple product life cycles (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. DfX hierarchization based on the

different loops / temporal dimensions.

Validate - Interview guide

In the last step of the methodology, an

interview with experts from the academic and

industrial world through a guided face-to-face

interview was undertaken. This methodology

consists of asking all the interviewees the

same questions, leaving them free to explore

specific issues (Patton, 2002) to validate the

proposal. A brief description of the profiles and

skills of the interviewees has been provided in

Tab. 1.

No. Area of CE expertise Sector From

1 User experience and

product design

Acade. USA

2 Transportation and

mobility systems

Acade. USA

3 Consumer electronics,

nanomaterials, and

lithium-ion batteries

Acade. USA

4 Policies supporting

energy technology,

energy systems and

information technology

Acade. USA

5 Product lifecycle

design and

remanufacturing

Indu. USA

Table 1. Specification on the competences and

origin of the interviewees.

Loading more pages...