1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 從環境面做產品設計的選擇
The selection of product designs from the environmental aspect
作者 李柏瀚
貢獻者 林我聰
李柏瀚
關鍵詞 產品選擇
環境
LCA
LCC
WTP
FRI
日期 2007
上傳時間 6-May-2016 16:37:13 (UTC+8)
摘要 一、 研究問題
     
     由於環保意識的抬頭以及相關法令的公布, 環保議題便顯的相當重要,但由於一般衡量環保的指標皆為污染值, 無法列入財務報表的評估, 於是將環保與財務結合變成為一項相當重要的課題. 而一個完整的產品發展架構，還包含著顧客的因素，從顧客的角度看，消費者願意付出的價錢，以及商品的實用率包括使用年限、使用時間、商品的各式抗性等等，都會影響到整個商品設計以及選擇的架構。因此在商品設計的流程中，公司都需要一個可以綜合分析比較的架構
     
     二、 研究目的
     
     過去將商品設計整合選擇的研究，多半僅有考量成本面，之後由於環保意識的抬頭，又有學者提出成本與環保的整合架構，但不是單位不統一（貨幣單位與污染指標無法綜合交叉運算）就是遺漏了從消費者面考量，以及對產品實用率的考量，而產品實用率又會影響到消費者願意付出的價錢，所以一個綜合產品生命週期成本，產品生命週期對環保衝擊的評估，產品實用率以及消費者願意付出的價錢共四個面向的考量模型，才能提供一套發展產品的綜合選擇依據
     三、 研究方法
     
     由於生命週期成本，產品生命週期對環保衝擊的評估，產品實用率以及消費者願意付出的價錢四個因素互有關連，所以本研究將提出一個綜合的選擇模型，從M.D. Bovea, R. Vidal 等學者提出的Model for the eco-design of products架構為理論基礎，延伸Kumaran D. Senthil,*, S.K. Ong, A.Y.C. Nee, Reginald B.H. Tan等學者提出的A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products 架構以及Giancarlo Barbiroli提出的Utilization Rate架構，將其中對環保衝擊的評估、生命週期成本、以及消費者願意付出的價錢都化為貨幣單位整合考量，發整出一套綜合模型。
     
     
     四、 預期結果
     
     本研究所提出之從環境面做產品設計之方案選擇架構，藉由文獻探討，將產品生命週期成品，產品生命週期對環保衝擊的評估，產品實用率以及消費者願意付出的價錢此四個產品選擇因素綜合考量，經由模型運算後，可得出一張總表，總表列出了可接受的產品方案，以及產品方案中獲利最大的方案，希望經由此架構的考量後，企業可以真實的使用會計單位來考量產品設計的選擇方案
The environmental topic is more and more important because the law of environmental and more and more people think the environmental product design is important. However, the design of environmentally sound products has implications not only for the companies but also for customers and the society. From the company point of view, the key factor for producing environmentally sound products is to obtain the maximum profit with their sales. So the costs incurred by the company (internal costs) must be supported by the customer’s willingness-to-pay. The rest of environmental costs (external costs) are assumed by the society. From the society point of view, the key factor for producing environmentally sound products is to obtain a reduction on both the environmental impact and external costs.
     So that’s important to have equilibrium between company and society goals can be achieved by adding value for the customer. (M.D. Bovea, R. Vidal 2004)
     But the outcome of life cycle assessment is always in different unit such as kg, v, p.p.m. , and the outcomes cannot be combined with balance sheet or other financial report such as monetary unit. So this is an important research to combine life cycle cost and life cycle assessment. But a complete structure of product design need more factors to concern about, such as customer aspect. From the customer point of view, the product’s sustainable characteristic, resistance characteristic and other characteristics are associated with the utilization of product. And the utilization rate is affecting the customer’s wellness to pay. Not only the utilization rate affect the customer’s wellness to pay, there are other factor like the product’s look, the materials use of the product and the functionary of the product etc… So the companies need a combining structure to make comparison and make a selection of product designs.
     The most of past researches in product designs selection were only consider the aspect of cost. And when the new concepts of environmental product design arise, some scholars start to research the combination of life cycle cost and life cycle assessment in production design. Some of their models are using inconsistence unit, some of them are not combining the customer’s view and the utilization rate. So a combination model which includes the 1.life cycle cost, 2.life cycle assessment, 3.utlization rate and 4.customer’s wellness to pay is needed for the environmental product designs selecting.
參考文獻 1. Maurizio Fiorini and Giancarlo Barbiroli, “A global performance index to assess the quality of elastomers” Polymer Testing, 2000.
     2. Marcus Carlsson Reich, “Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005.
     3. M.D. Bovea and R. Vidal, “Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and customer valuation” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2004.
     4. Kumaran D. Senthil, S.K. Ong and A.Y.C. Nee, Reginald B.H. Tan, “A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2003.
     5. Giancarlo Barbiroli, “The utilization rate and value of goods as strategic factors in resource productivity development” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006.
     6. Allen L. White, Monica Becker, James Goldstein and Tellus Institute, “Total Cost Assessment: Accelerating Industrial Pollution Prevention Through Innovative Project Financial Analysis With Applications to the Pulp and Paper Industry” United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, 1992.
     7. Elkington, “Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line”, 1997.
     8. Asiedu Y. Gu P., “Product life cost analysis: state of the art review”, Int J Prod Res. 1998
     9. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, et al. “Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A`Code of Practice`”. SETAC, Brussels and Pensacola, 1993
     10. Carson RT, Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ Sci Technol 2000;34(8):1423–8., 2000
     11. Nasr N and Varel EA, “Total product life cycle analysis and costing. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Total Life Cycle Conference.” Life Cycle Management and Assessment (Part 1). Society of Automotive Engineer (SAE), Inc., Warrendale (PA), USA; p. 9–15., 1997
     12. Shields MD and Young MS, Managing product life cycle costs: an organizational model. J Cost Manage 1991;5(3):39–52. 1991
     13. Shapiro KG, Incorporating costs in LCA. Int J LCA 2001;6(29):121–3., 2001
     14. White AL, Savage D and Shapiro K, “Life-cycle costing: concepts and applications. In: Curran MA (Ed.),” Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. New York, USA: Mc-Graw Hill. [chapter 7]. 1996
     15. Goedkoop M, The Eco-Indicator’95. Final report. Pré Consultants B.V., Amerstfoort, The Netherlands. 1995
     16. Goedkoop M and Spriensma R, The eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology report. Pré Consultants B.V., Amerstfoort, The Netherlands.1999
     17. Steen B, 1999a. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000. General system characteristics. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. CPM report; 1999:4., 1999
     18. Steen B, 1999b. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000. Models and data of the default method. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. CPM report; 1999:5., 1999
     19. Tellus Institute,. The Tellus packaging study. Tellus Institute, Boston (MA), USA. 1992
     20. Vidal R and Bovea MD, Georgantzis N, Camacho-Cuena E, “Is profitable to design ecological products? The furniture case.” Castellón, Spain: Ed. Universitat Jaume I [in Spanish]., 2002
     21. Carson RT, Flores NE and Meade NF. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 001;19(2):173–210. 2001
     22. Camacho-Cuena E, Garc´ıa-Gallego A, Georganz´ıs N and Sabater-Grande G. An experimental test of consistency in CVM. Ecological Economics; in press.2003
     23. Pahl G and Beitz W, Engineering design: a systematic approach. London (UK): Springer., 1988
     24. Idemat Database, Section for Environmental Product Development, Faculty of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands., 1996
     25. Lindeijer E and Ewinjk H, IVAMLCA Data 2.0. IVAMEnvironmental Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., 1998
     26. SAEFL, Life cycle inventories for packagings. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), Berne, Switzerland. 1998
     27. Bovea MD and Vidal R, Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design; Material & Design, in press. 2003
     28. Fabrycky WJ and Blanchard BS. Life cycle cost and economic analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.
     29. WTO Secretariat. Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/INF/5/Rev.5, 2002
     30. Forseesing Innovative New Digiservices, Monitor of Mobile Commutation, 2007
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
94356018
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094356018
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林我聰zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李柏瀚zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 李柏瀚zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2007en_US
dc.date.accessioned 6-May-2016 16:37:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 6-May-2016 16:37:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-May-2016 16:37:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0094356018en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94431-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 94356018zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 一、 研究問題
     
     由於環保意識的抬頭以及相關法令的公布, 環保議題便顯的相當重要,但由於一般衡量環保的指標皆為污染值, 無法列入財務報表的評估, 於是將環保與財務結合變成為一項相當重要的課題. 而一個完整的產品發展架構，還包含著顧客的因素，從顧客的角度看，消費者願意付出的價錢，以及商品的實用率包括使用年限、使用時間、商品的各式抗性等等，都會影響到整個商品設計以及選擇的架構。因此在商品設計的流程中，公司都需要一個可以綜合分析比較的架構
     
     二、 研究目的
     
     過去將商品設計整合選擇的研究，多半僅有考量成本面，之後由於環保意識的抬頭，又有學者提出成本與環保的整合架構，但不是單位不統一（貨幣單位與污染指標無法綜合交叉運算）就是遺漏了從消費者面考量，以及對產品實用率的考量，而產品實用率又會影響到消費者願意付出的價錢，所以一個綜合產品生命週期成本，產品生命週期對環保衝擊的評估，產品實用率以及消費者願意付出的價錢共四個面向的考量模型，才能提供一套發展產品的綜合選擇依據
     三、 研究方法
     
     由於生命週期成本，產品生命週期對環保衝擊的評估，產品實用率以及消費者願意付出的價錢四個因素互有關連，所以本研究將提出一個綜合的選擇模型，從M.D. Bovea, R. Vidal 等學者提出的Model for the eco-design of products架構為理論基礎，延伸Kumaran D. Senthil,*, S.K. Ong, A.Y.C. Nee, Reginald B.H. Tan等學者提出的A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products 架構以及Giancarlo Barbiroli提出的Utilization Rate架構，將其中對環保衝擊的評估、生命週期成本、以及消費者願意付出的價錢都化為貨幣單位整合考量，發整出一套綜合模型。
     
     
     四、 預期結果
     
     本研究所提出之從環境面做產品設計之方案選擇架構，藉由文獻探討，將產品生命週期成品，產品生命週期對環保衝擊的評估，產品實用率以及消費者願意付出的價錢此四個產品選擇因素綜合考量，經由模型運算後，可得出一張總表，總表列出了可接受的產品方案，以及產品方案中獲利最大的方案，希望經由此架構的考量後，企業可以真實的使用會計單位來考量產品設計的選擇方案		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The environmental topic is more and more important because the law of environmental and more and more people think the environmental product design is important. However, the design of environmentally sound products has implications not only for the companies but also for customers and the society. From the company point of view, the key factor for producing environmentally sound products is to obtain the maximum profit with their sales. So the costs incurred by the company (internal costs) must be supported by the customer’s willingness-to-pay. The rest of environmental costs (external costs) are assumed by the society. From the society point of view, the key factor for producing environmentally sound products is to obtain a reduction on both the environmental impact and external costs.
     So that’s important to have equilibrium between company and society goals can be achieved by adding value for the customer. (M.D. Bovea, R. Vidal 2004)
     But the outcome of life cycle assessment is always in different unit such as kg, v, p.p.m. , and the outcomes cannot be combined with balance sheet or other financial report such as monetary unit. So this is an important research to combine life cycle cost and life cycle assessment. But a complete structure of product design need more factors to concern about, such as customer aspect. From the customer point of view, the product’s sustainable characteristic, resistance characteristic and other characteristics are associated with the utilization of product. And the utilization rate is affecting the customer’s wellness to pay. Not only the utilization rate affect the customer’s wellness to pay, there are other factor like the product’s look, the materials use of the product and the functionary of the product etc… So the companies need a combining structure to make comparison and make a selection of product designs.
     The most of past researches in product designs selection were only consider the aspect of cost. And when the new concepts of environmental product design arise, some scholars start to research the combination of life cycle cost and life cycle assessment in production design. Some of their models are using inconsistence unit, some of them are not combining the customer’s view and the utilization rate. So a combination model which includes the 1.life cycle cost, 2.life cycle assessment, 3.utlization rate and 4.customer’s wellness to pay is needed for the environmental product designs selecting.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Catalog
     1. Introduction 1
     1.1 Background 1
     1.2 Motivation 2
     1.3 Goal 3
     1.4 Research Methodology: 3
     1.5 Paper structure 4
     2. Literature Review 6
     2.1 Topics about the selection of product designs from the environmental aspect 6
     2.1.1 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) 6
     2.1.2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 11
     2.1.3 Wellness to pay (WTP) 16
     2.1.4 Utilization Rate/ Fruition Rate Index (FRI) 18
     2.2 Combination models 20
     2.2.1 Model for the eco-design of products (M.D. Bovea, R. Vidal, 2004)[3] 20
     2.2.2 The use of LCA, financial LCC, and environmental LCC as tools supporting the decision process (Marcus Carlsson Reich 2005)[2] 21
     3. Research method 23
     3.1. Research processes 23
     3.2. Research structure: 25
     3.3. How to get materials in the model 26
     3.3.1 LCC 26
     3.3.2 LCA 30
     3.3.3 FRI 32
     3.3.4 WTP 32
     3.4 Stages in model 35
     3.4.1 Stage I: initial analysis of the product 35
     3.4.2 Stage II: generation of alternatives 35
     3.4.3 Stage III: analysis of the alternatives 36
     3.4.4 Stage IV: selection of ecological alternatives 37
     3.5 Result table structure 38
     4. Model implementation and situation analysis 39
     4.1. Parameters Design 39
     4.2. Situation Design 40
     4.2.1 LCC Data 40
     4.2.2 LCA Data 40
     4.2.3 FRI Data 41
     4.3. Verification 42
     4.3.1 Environmental aspect 42
     4.3.2 Customer aspect (Sustainability of Product) 42
     4.4. Results 44
     4.4.1. Output of Bovea’s model 44
     4.4.2. Output of PHL’s model 44
     4.4.3. Result Table of Bovea’s model 45
     4.4.4. Result Table of PHL’s model 45
     4.4.5. The Compare Table of Bovea’s model & PHL’s Model 46
     5. Research Contribution and Future research advise 47
     5.1. Research Contribution 47
     5.2. Future research advise 47
     Reference 48
     
     
     
     
     
     Figures
     Chapter 1
     Figure 1.1 Paper structure 5
     Chapter 2
     Figure 2.1. Classification of the Life Cycle Costs of a product 7
     Figure 2.2 Flowchart of the developed LCECA 13
     Figure 2.3 Example of a question based on Contingent Valuation. 17
     Figure 2.4 Schema of the relevance tree for the construction of the GPI 19
     Figure 2.5 The use of LCA, financial LCC, and environmental LCC as tools supporting the decision process. 22
     Chapter 3
     Figure 3.1 The 5 steps of process 24
     Figure 3.2 The selecting model of product designs from the environmental aspect 25
     Figure 3.3 Schematic of EPA methodology 26
     Figure 3.4 Example of a question based on Contingent Valuation 34
     Figure 3.5 result table structure 39
     Chapter 4
     Figure 4.1 LCC Table 40
     Figure 4.2 LCA Table 40
     Figure 4.3 FRI Table 1 41
     Figure 4.4 FRI Table 2 41
     Figure 4.5 Input Table 41
     Figure 4.6 Verification Process Model 43
     Figure 4.7 Output table of Bovea’s model 44
     Figure 4.8 Output table of PHL’s model 44
     Figure 4.9 Result Table of Bovea’s model 45
     Figure 4.10 Result Table of PHL’s model 45
     Figure 4.11 The Compare Table of Bovea’s model & PHL’s Model 46		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094356018en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 產品選擇zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 環境zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) LCAzh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) LCCzh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) WTPzh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) FRIzh_TW
dc.title (題名) 從環境面做產品設計的選擇zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The selection of product designs from the environmental aspecten_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Maurizio Fiorini and Giancarlo Barbiroli, “A global performance index to assess the quality of elastomers” Polymer Testing, 2000.
     2. Marcus Carlsson Reich, “Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005.
     3. M.D. Bovea and R. Vidal, “Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and customer valuation” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2004.
     4. Kumaran D. Senthil, S.K. Ong and A.Y.C. Nee, Reginald B.H. Tan, “A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2003.
     5. Giancarlo Barbiroli, “The utilization rate and value of goods as strategic factors in resource productivity development” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006.
     6. Allen L. White, Monica Becker, James Goldstein and Tellus Institute, “Total Cost Assessment: Accelerating Industrial Pollution Prevention Through Innovative Project Financial Analysis With Applications to the Pulp and Paper Industry” United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, 1992.
     7. Elkington, “Sustainability and the Triple Bottom Line”, 1997.
     8. Asiedu Y. Gu P., “Product life cost analysis: state of the art review”, Int J Prod Res. 1998
     9. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, et al. “Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A`Code of Practice`”. SETAC, Brussels and Pensacola, 1993
     10. Carson RT, Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ Sci Technol 2000;34(8):1423–8., 2000
     11. Nasr N and Varel EA, “Total product life cycle analysis and costing. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Total Life Cycle Conference.” Life Cycle Management and Assessment (Part 1). Society of Automotive Engineer (SAE), Inc., Warrendale (PA), USA; p. 9–15., 1997
     12. Shields MD and Young MS, Managing product life cycle costs: an organizational model. J Cost Manage 1991;5(3):39–52. 1991
     13. Shapiro KG, Incorporating costs in LCA. Int J LCA 2001;6(29):121–3., 2001
     14. White AL, Savage D and Shapiro K, “Life-cycle costing: concepts and applications. In: Curran MA (Ed.),” Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. New York, USA: Mc-Graw Hill. [chapter 7]. 1996
     15. Goedkoop M, The Eco-Indicator’95. Final report. Pré Consultants B.V., Amerstfoort, The Netherlands. 1995
     16. Goedkoop M and Spriensma R, The eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology report. Pré Consultants B.V., Amerstfoort, The Netherlands.1999
     17. Steen B, 1999a. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000. General system characteristics. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. CPM report; 1999:4., 1999
     18. Steen B, 1999b. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000. Models and data of the default method. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. CPM report; 1999:5., 1999
     19. Tellus Institute,. The Tellus packaging study. Tellus Institute, Boston (MA), USA. 1992
     20. Vidal R and Bovea MD, Georgantzis N, Camacho-Cuena E, “Is profitable to design ecological products? The furniture case.” Castellón, Spain: Ed. Universitat Jaume I [in Spanish]., 2002
     21. Carson RT, Flores NE and Meade NF. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 001;19(2):173–210. 2001
     22. Camacho-Cuena E, Garc´ıa-Gallego A, Georganz´ıs N and Sabater-Grande G. An experimental test of consistency in CVM. Ecological Economics; in press.2003
     23. Pahl G and Beitz W, Engineering design: a systematic approach. London (UK): Springer., 1988
     24. Idemat Database, Section for Environmental Product Development, Faculty of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands., 1996
     25. Lindeijer E and Ewinjk H, IVAMLCA Data 2.0. IVAMEnvironmental Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., 1998
     26. SAEFL, Life cycle inventories for packagings. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), Berne, Switzerland. 1998
     27. Bovea MD and Vidal R, Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design; Material & Design, in press. 2003
     28. Fabrycky WJ and Blanchard BS. Life cycle cost and economic analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.
     29. WTO Secretariat. Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/INF/5/Rev.5, 2002
     30. Forseesing Innovative New Digiservices, Monitor of Mobile Commutation, 2007		zh_TW