Ecodesign in Central America, Ecodesign methodology: Product Improvement Tool (PIT)

Ecodesign in CentralAmerica, Ecodesignmethodology: ProductImprovement Tool �PIT�

Jan Carel Diehl, Marcel Crul and Arianne Bijma

Design for Sustainability Programme (DfS), Faculty ofDesign, Construction and Production, Delft University ofTechnology, The Netherlands

During the last decade eco-design has been tested and im-plemented successfully in Eu-rope, USA, Australia and Japan.However, in many parts of theworld, particularly in newly indus-trialising countries in Asia, LatinAmerica and Africa, the experi-ences with eco-design arescarce. As a result the Design forSustainability (DfS) Programmeof Delft University of Technologyhas initiated several demonstra-tion and research programmes inthese countries. The ´EcodiseñoCentroAmerica’ programme is afirst attempt at eco-design on alarger scale in Central America.The aim of the four year pro-gramme is the building of re-gional capacity for the dissemina-tion and implementation of theconcept and practice of eco-design in small and mediumsized companies in Costa Rica,Guatemala, El Salvador, Hondu-ras and Nicaragua. To generateexperience and show the poten-tial benefits of eco-design in Cen-tral America, nine demonstrationprojects were initiated and alarge array of dissemination ac-tivities were implemented. Thisincluded an eco-design manual,

project tools, internet websiteand training materials. This arti-cle describes a part of the eco-design methodology developmentand one case study of the ‘Eco-diseño CentroAmerica’ pro-gramme.

Introduction

Within the ‘Ecodiseño Cen-troAmerica’ programme, theemphasis is put on what isoften denoted as ‘eco-rede-sign’ of products, in whichoptimisation takes placemostly on the product level.Typical – technical – improve-ments involve low-impact ma-terials selection, optimisationof production and distribution,reduction of impact during theuse phase, and improvementof the end-of-life phase of theproduct. In some of theprojects, a first start is madewith efforts on a functional orsystem level, but this is notthe first focus. The deliberatechoice for eco-redesign ap-proaches matches well withthe general level of innovationand product development

Jan Carel Diehl is assistent profes-sor at Design for Sustainability

(DfS) Programme at Delft Universityof Technology providing eco-design

courses for industrial design engi-neering students. His research ac-

tivities are focussed on the introduc-tion and implementation of eco-

design in newly industrialisingcountries like India, Tanzania and

Central America. His recent re-search interests relates to eco-

design knowledge transfer bymeans by means of the Internet to

higher education in developingcountries.

Marcel Crul is project coordinator forDfS on the research project ”eco-

design in Central America”, focusingon innovation diffusion in the region.

Next to his appointment at DelftUniversity, he is director of Aries

Environmental Innovation, a consul-tancy involved in research projectsand policy advice on sustainability

issues.

Arianne Bijma graduated as an in-dustrial design engineer from Delft

University. Her research project cov-ered the application of eco-designtools in Costa Rica. Recently shestarted up her own environmentalresearch and consultancy firm Ar-

cana Consultancy. She is especiallyfocusing on environmental tools for

businesses, system innovations(product service systems) and sus-

tainable business strategies.

ANALYSIS

197THE JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT DESIGN

The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 1: 197–205, 2001© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

know-how in the target groupof small and medium sizedcompanies in Central America.For many of the companies,this is not only their first eco-design project, but also thefirst attempt to implement sys-tematic product development.In the absence of local exter-nal drivers for eco-design,such as legislation and sup-plier/customer demand, inter-nal drivers are even more im-portant for the introduction ofeco-design in companies inCentral America. The maininternal drivers in the compa-nies were cost reduction, inno-vation, new market opportuni-ties and developing acompetitive edge. The mainexternal eco-design driver wasthe export market. To survivethe globalisation of markets,local companies have to be-come more export-orientatedand their eco-design knowl-edge needs to be expandedquickly to enable them to pro-duce greener products to sat-isfy the increasing environ-mental laws and growingsocietal awareness of Northernexport markets.

Transfer the UNEP PROMISEEcodesign approach toCentral America

In 1994 the Design for Sus-tainability �DfS� Programmeat the Delft University ofTechnology developed amethod for environmentalproduct development, the so-called PROMISE approach.Results of the programme hasled to the setting of a firststandard for eco-design meth-odology by the United Nations

Environmental Programme�UNEP� with the issuing ofthe UNEP PROMISE Manual�Brezet et al. 1997�.

Within the ‘Ecodiseño Cen-troAmerica’ programme therewas a need for an appropriatetransfer of the PROMISE ap-proach to the Central Ameri-can situation. Since technolo-gies are best transferred bydirect people-to-people inter-actions, it was decided thatthis was the most appropriatechannel for the transfer ofeco-design firms in to CentralAmerica �Durana, 1995�.Training must be delivered tothe local people in a way thatensures that learning eco-design continues after the ex-pert or consultant has left.One of the key activities inthe project is to follow andanalyse the experiences ofadapting the European eco-design approach to the localneeds and context. In an ‘onthe job’ and ‘continuous learn-ing’ model, the experienceswere evaluated and docu-mented, approaches and toolsadapted and re-applied in thelater cases. This can be seenas a form of ‘unpackaged’technology transfer. A distinc-tion can be made between‘packaged’ and ‘unpackaged’technology transfer �Djeflat1988�. In the ‘packaged‘ form,a complete entity with all thetechnological and knowledgeelements is tied together andtransferred as a whole. An-other possibility is to break-down the technology andmethodology into sub-partsand separate tools: ‘unpack-aged’ technology. In this man-ner it is possible for the re-

cipient to import and applyonly a part of the total avail-able technology and to adaptit to his own needs. ‘Unpack-aged’ technology transfergives the recipient the oppor-tunity to learn and build upthe needed local capacity. Italso makes it possible to cre-ate a two-way relationshipbecause the local counterpartis involved in the decision-making processes. The ‘un-packaging’ of the Europeaneco-design approach by select-ing the right tools, adaptingthem, and adding locally rel-evant aspects, was thought tobe the best approach to de-velop to an appropriate cus-tomised Central American ap-proach.

The transfer of the Ecodesignapproach

In co-operation with the localcounterpart of the project,CEGESTI, a first attempt wasmade to unpackage and trans-fer the PROMISE eco-designapproach to Central America.CEGESTI is a private non-profit organisation that focuseson industrial development,environmental managementand innovation operating inthe Central American region.Within the project there wasfirst of all a need to provideappropriate eco-design toolsfor SME’s. The method usedwas to develop eco-designtools that would initially beapplied in companies by exter-nal consultants like CEGESTI.The aim was that after a firstsuccessful eco-design exerciseby the consultants, the com-

ANALYSIS

198 THE JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT DESIGN

pany itself should be able toapply the tools independently.

As a first step the PROMISEapproach was broken down insmall parcels. The “unpack-aged” PROMISE approachconsisted of the followingeco-design tools:· The eco-portfolio matrix,

aimed at positioning the se-lected product/market com-bination from an environ-mental perspective;

· The eco-design prioritymatrix, good to prioritisethe ‘green’ improvementoptions;

· The Environmental Life Cy-cle Costing tool, a methodto translate environmentalimpacts into eco-costs;

· The MET matrix, helpedidentify the environmentaleffects at all stages of theproduct life cycle; and

· The LiDS �Life Cycle De-sign Strategies� wheel, atool that systematically gen-erates ‘green’ options foreco-design.

Selection of tools

It was clear from the begin-ning of the programme thatthe tools presented in thePROMISE approach wereconceptually complex and tobe useful required a lot ofdetailed insight into both envi-ronmental problems and prod-uct development. This under-standing was recognised to be

lacking. Therefore, early inthe programme it was decidedto use relative simple tools forenvironmental assessmentsand the generation of im-provement options. Based onexperience from former eco-design projects in newly in-dustrialising and developingcountries it was decided that itwould be most useful to startwith the adaptation of theMET-matrix �an environmen-tal assessment tool� and theLiDS-wheel �used for amongstothers for generating improve-ment options�.

In order to adapt these twotools, research was completedin three different areas:· Drivers for eco-design in

Europe and Central America· Cultural characteristics of

Costa Rica· Evaluation of the MET ma-

trix and LiDS wheel.

Drivers for eco-design inEurope and Central America

In the European context exter-nal drivers for eco-design areimportant. EU and nationalproduct oriented environmen-tal policies, market demand,activities of competitors, qual-ity demands from suppliersand pressure from ‘cival soci-ety’ �environmental organisa-tions, public pressure� all canmotivate companies to starteco-design. In most CentralAmerican projects, externaldrivers for eco-design havebeen absent. Legislation isbasically effect- instead ofprevention-oriented and cer-tainly not focused on integralenvironmental aspects of prod-ucts. Existing industry related

Figures 1 and 2: The Material cycle-Energy use-Toxic Emissions (MET) ma-trix and the Life Cycle Design Strategies (LiDS) wheel.

ANALYSIS


environmental policy is gener-ally not very well established,nor strictly implemented. Anexception is the position ofexporting companies, particu-larly those exporting to theUSA and Europe. Those com-panies have to be more sensi-tive to the environmental pro-file of their products andsometimes simply have tocomply with import regula-tions, for instance on packag-ing. In the absence of externaldrivers for eco-design, internaldrivers become even moreimportant for the introductionof eco-design in companies.The research shows that costreduction, product quality im-provement and the creation ofnew market opportunities,coupled will learning aboutsystematic product innovationmethodologies, were the maininternal drivers for companiesinvolved in eco-designprojects. Environmental im-provement per se was neverthe main driving force. As aconsequence, the importanceof internal drivers was empha-sised more clearly and costreduction analysis was givenmore of a priority during thetool development.

Cultural characteristics ofCosta Rica

Several aspects of Costa Ricanculture needed to be consid-ered before transfering theeco-design techniques. Re-search of Hofstede �1995� re-vealed that Costa Rican peo-ple are relative morecollectivistic. This implies thatin Costa Rica personal rela-tionships are more important,and that an eco-design tool

should be accompanied bypersonal contact. Another as-pect that came to light in theresearch of Hofstede is thefear of insecurity. Costa Ricanpeople seem to have fear overunknown and unpredictablesituations. The implicationsfor eco-design is that it isprobably better to aim at smallinnovations, which will notcreate too much change at onetime for a company. Neithershould eco-design tools bevague or leave room for manyinterpretations, since thiscould also lead to insecurity.Most companies in newly in-dustrialising countries do nothave a formalised product de-velopment method and thisseems also to be the case inCosta Rica. Products aremostly developed throughcopying other �Western� prod-ucts whilst small improve-ments.

Evaluation of theMET-matrix andLiDS-wheel

An evaluation was made ofthe experiences with the METmatrix and the LiDS wheel byanalysing reports of earlierprojects carried out in newlyindustrialising countries andthrough interviews with peo-ple who had experience withthese tools in these countries.During the evaluation of theMET matrix and the LiDSwheel a lot of possibilities forimprovement of these toolsemerged, most of them beingof a technical or practical na-ture. Others comments fo-cused on recommendations forthe development of a new

tool. Important remarks werefor example:· Stress easy achievements;· Life cycle thinking is one of

the most important aspectsof an eco-design tool;

· There must be accompany-ing information and training;

· The tool should not onlyrely on a design departmentor development process;

· The eco-design strategiesshould be formulated asrules of thumb;

· The relationship betweenenvironmental problems�MET matrix� and solutions�LiDS wheel� is not alwaysclear;

· The LiDS wheel should beintegrated with cost andquality aspects.

Directions for improvements

These possible improvementof the tools, together with thecharacteristics of Costa Ricanculture and the local eco-design drivers, formed thebasis for the development of anew tool. The new toolneeded to provide a very clearand practical step-by-stepmethod, which could be ap-plied independently of theproduct development process.This method could be taughtto company people by a con-sultant, after which the com-pany should be able to use thetool independently. Examplesand extensive explanationshould support this process.The problem definition tool�MET matrix� and the solutionfinding tool �LiDS-wheel�should be made more compat-ible to improve understanding.The characteristics of CostaRican culture highlighted that

ANALYSIS


it would be better to convincea company of the usefulnessof eco-design by using practi-cal examples and applicationrather than with abstract theo-ries.

Development of the new tool

The research led to a list ofrequirements for the develop-ment of a new eco-design toolfor Costa Rica. An importantaspect of the list of require-ments was that the tool shouldhave enough benefits to makeit attractive without the pres-sure of environmental legisla-tion. The eco-design strategiesfrom the LiDS-wheel weredivided into three differentimprovement options �costs,quality and environment� forfour reasons:· Companies know the terms

costs and quality, and theirbenefits do not need addi-tional explanation. Eco-design however is still re-garded as something thatwill cost money and effort,and something which thebenefits still have to beproven.

· The eco-design approach hasbeen developed for design-ers, whilst the new tool is

aimed at SME’s and externalconsultants. This demands amore integrated approachthat can be understood bydifferent departments of acompany.

· To demonstrate that eco-design is not something dif-ferent, but another aspectcontributing to the successor failure of a product by,for example, cost reductionand quality improvement.

· If attention is being paid tothe three aspects of productimprovement, in parallel,contradictions can beavoided. An example of acontradiction is for examplethat some environmentalimprovements may producehigher costs. When costs,quality and environmentalimpact are regarded at thesame time, this can beavoided.

As a consequence of theabove mentioned recommen-dations it was decided to de-velop one integrated tool thatproduced a better connectionbetween environmental analy-ses and the generation of theimprovement options.

The Product ImprovementTriangle

The first version of the newtool was tested in severalCosta Rican and Guatemalancompanies. It proved to besuccessful, although some al-terations had to be made. Theadapted version of the toolwas then tested within severalother companies. After a sec-ond alteration the outcomebecame the so-called ProductImprovement Triangle “PITtool”.

The PIT tool consists of newprocedures to foster the learn-ing process of using environ-mental tools. The PIT proce-dure follows a sequence ofsteps, all in the form of ques-tions and simple checklists.First an analysis of the prod-uct is made, followed by a life

L I F E C Y C L E A N A L Y S I S I M P R O V E M E N T F O L L O W – U P

A: Raw materials B: Production C: Distribution D: Use E: Disposal

Follow-up

Improvement Potential

Intro-duction

Life Cycle Costing

Action Matrix

Product Analyses

= cost reduction = quality improvement = eco-design

Figure 4: Structure of the PIT method

Figure 3: The PIT Tool –symbol

ANALYSIS


cycle costs estimation. Next,green options are generatedthrough a set of questions,following the stages of theproduct life cycle. Within eachstage, first the questions deal-ing with cost reduction areasked, then quality and finallyenvironmental improvement.At the end, an action matrix isfilled in. See Figure 4 for anoverview of the procedure.

The improvement strategieshave been translated intoquestions that aim to identifyproblems and solutions at thesame time.

After the questions have beenanswered, all the improvementoptions are then assessed andvisualised for all stages of thelife cycle. This is done bymeans of a wheel chart likethe one used in the LiDSwheel. Subsequently, the im-provement options are listedin the so-called ‘Action Ma-trix’. In this matrix, all theoptions feasible are listed,including plans and the personthat is responsible for the ex-ecution of the options.

To help understand the PITquestions during the workshopand afterwards, was devel-oped. In this book all thequestions are filled in with anexample product. This canhelp the reader in interpretingthe question, but also in find-ing new solutions by showingeco-design possibilitiesthrough- the use of examples.Some examples include draw-ings to encourage the user todraw, because this can en-hance creativity and removenatural barriers.

Table 2: Question from the example book

Table 1: Example of question for improvements

ANALYSIS


Case study: Bendig, CostaRica

Bendig, a medium sized com-pany in Costa Rica, was onecompany that applied andtested the PIT. They produceabout 60 different kinds ofmachines for the processing ofcoffee mainly for the exportmarket. For the first PITworkshop a coffee roastingmachine was selected and amulti-disciplinary team ofBendig staff was put together.Before the PIT workshop,Bendig had formed a multi-disciplinary team to criticallyevaluate one of Bendig’s prod-ucts. The workshop was facili-tated by an external consult-ant, who aimed to break theroutine and to view the prod-uct differently. The ideas gen-erated by the team variedfrom slight technical changesto radical alterations of thedesign. Design strategy ques-tions were needed to triggerimprovement options and thePIT method stimulated partici-pants to question their deci-sions related to the productand to consider alternatives.

After the workshop Bendigdeveloped a product redesign,based on some of the im-provement options. Twomonths later, the Bendig teammade a second complete rede-sign of the coffee roaster inwhich most of the improve-ment options were imple-mented. This new design in-cluded substantial costreductions and environmentalimprovements and this gener-ated very positive customerfeedback. The new way ofimproving the products came

at the right moment, since themarket for coffee processingmachines is changing rapidlyand new players are enteringthe market continuously. Byimproving their products fast,Bendig hopes to maintain theircompetitive position.

Although the consultant wasnecessary at the first workshopto familarise Bendig with thetools, they now considerthemselves capable of usingthe PIT approach independ-ently. In addition, the PIT wasuseful as a bridge between theproduction and design depart-ments and it helped to struc-ture the product developmentprocess.

Follow-up ecodesign project

After the first success, Bendigdecided to set up a secondeco-design project. The “Ore-adora”, a coffee drying ma-chine, was the subject of theredesign project. During theprocessing of the coffee, thismachine is used in the pre-drying process, immediatelyafter the washing and beforethe process of drying of thebeans. The main applied mate-rial is sheet steel and morethan 65% of the costs dependon the assembly time.

One of the important environ-mental aspects of this machineis the transport. The “Ore-adora” is a relatively big andheavy machine and it is ex-ported to distant countries likeGuatemala, Mexico, Domini-can Republic and Hawaii.Other factors are the energyconsumption and the environ-mental impact of the raw ma-

terials used for the production.The analysis demonstrated thatthe best options with the high-est eco-design potential wererelated to the optimisation ofproduction, reduction in theuse of materials, the elimina-tion of unnecessary compo-nents and the simplification ofthe principles of machine op-eration. The new design ismuch more simple and com-pact. The removal of superflu-ous elements and the simplifi-cation of construction also hasa secondary effect on the ma-chine, e.g., it provides higherdurability, easier transport andmaintenance. In the long termBendig wants to integratemore innovations in the designprocess and to develop a com-pletely different concept.

The main results of the secondeco-design project of Bendigwere:· The redesigned product con-

tains 20% less material· The assembly time was re-

duced by 20%· The volume of the rede-

signed product is muchsmaller which means it canbe transported easier

· Installation and the mainte-nance were simplified

· The new product is easier tooperate by the customer

· The costs were reduced by30%, which is a reduction ofUS$4,000.

The Bendig case is one ofnine eco-design demonstrationprojects from the ´EcodiseñoCentroAmerica’ programme.Other local eco-design toolswere developed besides thePIT tool. The results of thelocal eco-design approach and

ANALYSIS


the demonstration projectswere combined in a Spanisheco-design manual: ‘ Manualpara la implementación deEcodiseño en Centroamérica’.

Conclusion

The goal of the ‘EcodiseñoCentroAmerica project’ was toadapt two tools from theUNEP Promise manual �the

MET-matrix and the LiDS-wheel� to be appropriate forthe product development proc-ess in Costa Rica. The inte-gration of cost and qualityaspects has made the toolmore attractive to small andmedium sized companies inCentral America when com-pared to a “single” environ-mental tool. The requirementthat the tool should be easy touse played a very important

role during the developmentof the new tool. As a resultthe PIT was designed to be astep-by-step tool that can beintroduced by a consultant andthen used afterwards inde-pendently. The questions usedwithin the PIT-method arevery general and there is aneed for more specific ques-tions for the different indus-trial sectors. Furthermore,there is a lack of environmen-tal information on materialsand processes for the CentralAmerican situation.The experiences with check-list-type tools are positivewhen used as a starting pointin company projects. They canbuild a basic understanding inthe company of eco-designpractice that can be followedby more conceptual thinking,necessary for the continuationof the process. The PITmethod mainly leads to short-term technical improvementoptions and not towards morefunctional and system levelsolutions. In the future, theprogramme will give moreemphasis on the functionaland systems level improve-ments.

Figure 5: the original and he new redesign of the Oreadora.

ANALYSIS


Figure 6. Logo and web-site Ecodiseño CentroAmerica project

References:

Brezet, H. et al, (1997), ‘Ecode-sign: a Promising approach tosustainable production and con-sumption’, UNEP/IE, Paris.

Brezet, H. et al. (1994), ‘PROM-ISE: Handleiding voor mi-lieugerichte productontwikkeling’,NOTA, The Hague.

Bijma, A. (1999), Development ofan Ecodesign Tool for Costa Rica:The PIT method, graduation re-port for the Delft University ofTechnology.

CEGESTI et al. (1999), ‘Manualpara la implementación de Eco-diseño en Centroamérica’, SanJosé, Costa Rica, CEGESTI.

Crul, M. and G. Riba (1999), ‘Ca-pacity building for Ecodesign inCentral-American Industry’, in:Ways of Acting, Eigth InternationalGreening of Industry NetworkConference, Nov. 14–17, ChapelHill, North Carolina, USA.

Djaflet, A. (1988), ‘The manage-ment of technology transfer:Views and experiences of devel-oping countries’, In: InternationalJournal of Technology Mange-ment, Vol 3, No. 1/2, pp. 149–165.

Durana, P.J. (1995), ‘TechnologyTranasfer: underpinning sustain-able development’.

Hemel, C.G. van (1998), ‘EcoDe-sign empirically explored; Designfor Environment in Dutch smalland medium sized enterprises’,Thesis Delft University of Technol-ogy, Delft, The Netherlands.

Hofstede, G. (1995), ‘AllemaalAndersdenkenden, Omgaan metCultuurverschillen’, Uitgeverij Con-tact, Amsterdam.

Web-reference:More information about the projectcan be found on the project web-site: http://www.io.tudelft.nl/research/dfs/ecodiseno/

ANALYSIS


Documents

Ecodesign in Central America, Ecodesign methodology: Product Improvement Tool (PIT)