Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T13:06:40.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Approach for Choosing the Cost Effective Design for a Product-Service System While Maintaining its Desired Reliability

Part of: Product-Service-System (PSS) Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Jannik Alexander Schneider ,
Iryna Mozgova  and
Roland Lachmayer

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

With the spread of product-service systems as business models the life cycle costs are of increasing importance as a measurement of product cost. A key factor that drives these costs is the desired reliability of the products used to provide the service. Since the customer usually expects as uninterrupted service availability, it is imperative to achieve the the required reliability. Therefore a large variety of methods has been developed to maximize the reliability of a product. But these approaches focus on the maximization of the reliability and disregard the resulting product costs. This can lead to designs that over perform concerning their reliability requirements but also exceed their target costs. Which will result in the product-service system not being competitive in the marketplace or lowering the company's profit. This paper shows an approach on how to use markov chains to enable a quick comparison of life cycle costs from different product-service system designs With this it will be possible to make better informed decisions about the costs of a system while still meeting the reliability targets.

Keywords

Product-Service Systems (PSS)EvaluationDesign costingLife cycle costingReliability
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3041 - 3050
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Chambari, A., Rahmati, S.H.A., Najafi, A.A. and Karimi, A. (2012), “A bi-objective model to optimize reliability and cost of system with a choice of redundancy strategies”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 109–119.Google Scholar
Chern, M.-S. (1992), “On the computational complexity of reliability redundancy allocation in a series system”, Operations Research Letters, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 309–315.Google Scholar
Coit, D.W. (2003), “Maximization of System Reliability with a Choice of Redundancy Strategies”, IIE Transactions, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 535–543.Google Scholar
Ebeling, C.E. (2010), An introduction to reliability and maintainability engineering, 2. ed., Waveland Press, Long Grove Ill.Google Scholar
Eberlin, S. and Hock, B. (2014), Zuverlässigkeit und Verfügbarkeit technischer Systeme, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K., Kiewert, A., Hundal, M.S. and Lindemann, U. (2007), Cost-efficient design, Springer, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
Farr, J.V. (2011), Systems life cycle costing: Economics analysis, estimation, and management, Engineering management book series, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Goedkoop, M. (1999), Product Service systems, Ecological and Economic Basics.Google Scholar
ISO 15663-1 (2000), “Petroleum and natural gas industries ”, Life cycle costing, BSI British Standards, London.Google Scholar
Johannknecht, F. (2018), Lebenszyklusorientiertes Kostenmanagement für Produkt-Service Systeme: Dissertation, Berichte aus dem iPeG, 2017, Band 5, PZH Verlag, Garbsen.Google Scholar
Johannknecht, F., Gatzen, M.M., Hahn, D. and Lachmayer, R. (2016a), “Holistic Life Cycle Costing Approach for Different Development Phases of Drilling Tools”, in IPTC, 2016/11/12, International Petroleum Technology Conference, p. 11.Google Scholar
Johannknecht, F., Gatzen, M.M. and Lachmayer, R. (2016b), “Life Cycle Cost Model for Considering Fleet Utilization in Early Conceptual Design Phases”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 48, pp. 68–72.Google Scholar
Norris, J.R. (1997), Markov Chains, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ross, S.M. (2014), Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists, 5. ed., Elsevier Acad. Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stewart, W.J. (2009), Probability, Markov Chains, Queues, and Simulation: The Mathematical Basis of Performance Modeling, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Tukker, A. (2004), “Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 246–260.Google Scholar