Accelerated Testing: Development of a Normative Lifespan Method for Water-Sports Products

Full text

(1)THESIS SUBMITTED FOR COMPLETION OF: MASTER OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT-SERVICE SYSTEM. INNOVATION (MSPI), BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KARLSKRONA, SWEDEN.. Accelerated Testing: Development of a Normative Lifespan Method for Water-Sports Products. Author: Hoel Chaigne Supervisors: Christian Johansson, Sven Borén. Date of Submission: 2020-06-26. DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARLSKRONA, SWEDEN, 2020.

(2)

(3) Abstract In the sports industry, the products currently being developed by design teams are degraded over time due to wear and tear. During the last decade, awareness about the global environmental crisis has increased and sports users are now more demanding about the environmental impact of products and services that they are using. Therefore, people are searching for companies that make durable and sustainable products and services. While the importance of durability regarding the development of a circular economy has been recognized, a concrete concept has not yet been specifically addressed in European product policies. Standards are missing and this research aims to develop a method, where companies from the water-sports industry could follow a step-by-step process to assess the normative lifespan of a product, especially in the early design stages of the product development process. The case study of OLAIAN, the DECATHLON surf brand, has made it possible to develop repeatable long-term quality test protocols on neoprene wetsuits and surfboards to characterize the ageing of these products. A product’s resistance is one of the durability factors that are tested in this method, by creating a database containing the number of uses a product has made and its evolution over time. This case study has allowed the testing of different protocols in cocreation with the surf organizations and explores further the study of a testing phase during the product development process. From these empirical findings, a 10-step method has been designed to estimate the normative lifespan of a product. Globally, the outcomes are intended for the design team, in order to know a product’s resistance over time and its weaknesses, thus being able to improve and further its lifespan. A second outcome is to fulfill information to complete studies on durability. Therefore, increase the reliability of Life Cycle Analysis and observe where is the biggest environmental impact in the product’s process (from inception to recycling) to take actions. This also helps to know more precisely the temporal warranty that companies can promise to their customers, and it completes studies on environmental indicators display to guide consumers to more sustainable choices. This study aims to allow in the future, sports organizations certified by Standardization organization for testing of products and the assessment of their durability. Further research on sensors or electronic devices, to more precisely follow the evolution of product during fieldtesting would be very relevant. As this thesis focused on field-testing for the reliability of products, based on these results further research in statistical models to support failures analysis in accelerated lab-testing must be implemented. Another opportunity is the emergence of platforms and product-service systems in the sports field. This could open up opportunities to have products used at a high frequency and in intense conditions to enable faster feedback on durability.. Keywords: Durability, Eco-Design, Product Reliability, LCA, Circular Economy and Sports Equipment.. II.

(4) III.

(5) Acknowledgement This thesis closes the Master of Sciences program in Sustainable Product-Service System Innovation (MSPI) of the Blekinge Institute of Technology. I have therefore to thank all the actors who have participated in this two-year journey, including my teachers and my class of 2016. I would especially like to thank my two supervisors from BTH that have supported me during this last university challenge, Christian Johansson and Sven Borén. A special thanks to my internship supervisor, Edel Alfredo Leon Suros, Product Engineer at DECATHLON, for allowing me to live this experience with him. Thank you for his availability, his experience of the job and his ability to communicate it. Thanks to my internship supervisor at EIGSI La Rochelle, Rose Campbell, for all her advice through my internship experience and the master thesis.. I also thank the Technical Directors (DT) of OLAIAN, David Fasquel with whom I had the firsts exchanges for having accepted me in the brand and followed me when I arrived in the group, and Cyril Cazin who has taken over and accompanied me on the end of my mission. I am grateful to all the people of the OLAIAN Technical Department, the engineers of the brand, and in particular the project teams of Thermal Insulation and Surfboards with whom I mainly worked during these months. And of course, Olivier Lefort and Guillaume Maisonnier, the Field Test Engineers for their invaluable advice. It was a pleasure to have some exchanges about durability and Long Lasting Factor with Guillaume Fruleux and Loic Lederman, congratulations for the great work done. I must thank the surfing clubs and school partners for this project, without our exchanges and their commitment all the data would not have been reliable enough and complicated to collect.. Finally, I would like to thank all of those who contributed to the accomplishment of this work, from peer reviewers to interviewees and including my family and friends for supporting me in accomplishing this thesis.. IV.

(6) V.

(7) Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... II Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................... IV Table of Figures .....................................................................................................................VIII Table of Tables ......................................................................................................................VIII Nomenclature............................................................................................................................ IX 1.. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.. 2.. Background ................................................................................................................................ 1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 3 Delimitation ............................................................................................................................... 3 Thesis Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Key Concepts ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1. The Product Design and Development Process ................................................................... 5 2.1.2. Eco-design ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ............................................................................................. 7 2.1.4. Durability ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.4.1. Interests of Extending a Product’s Lifespan ..................................................................... 7 2.1.4.2. Durability Factors in the Design Phase ............................................................................. 8 2.2. The Different Lifespans of a Product ...................................................................................... 9 2.2.1. Key Concepts ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2. Public Opinion and Study of Future Laws ......................................................................... 10 2.2.3. The Interests of a Product’s Normative Lifespan............................................................... 11 2.3. Product Lifespan Estimate ..................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Laboratory Tests ................................................................................................................. 13 2.3.2. Field Tests .......................................................................................................................... 17. 3.. Method ............................................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Research Strategy ................................................................................................................... 18 3.2. Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 20 3.2.1. Company Experience at OLAIAN (DECATHLON) ......................................................... 20 3.2.2. Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.3. Literature Research ............................................................................................................ 22 3.3. Research Clarification (RC): Review-based ......................................................................... 23 3.4. Descriptive Study I (DS-I): Comprehensive ......................................................................... 23 3.4.1. Tested Products .................................................................................................................. 23 3.4.2. Correlation between Field and Laboratory......................................................................... 25 3.4.3. Partners Identification ........................................................................................................ 27 3.4.4. Prototypes: Tested Products Monitoring Methods ............................................................. 28 3.5. Prescriptive Study (PS): Comprehensive .............................................................................. 32 3.6. Descriptive Study II (DS-II): Initial ...................................................................................... 32. 4.. Results and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33 4.1. Results and Analysis of the DS1............................................................................................. 33 4.1.1. Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 33 4.1.2. Tested Products .................................................................................................................. 35 4.1.3. The Durability Goal ........................................................................................................... 36 4.1.4. Partnerships ........................................................................................................................ 37. VI.

(8) 4.1.5. Test Conditions .................................................................................................................. 37 4.1.6. Accelerated Field Test Results ........................................................................................... 39 4.1.7. Failures Analysis and Action Plans Depending on the Origins ......................................... 46 4.2. Results and Analysis of the PS ............................................................................................... 47 4.3. Results and Analysis of the DS-II .......................................................................................... 53. 5.. Discussion........................................................................................................................... 54 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.. 6.. Interpretation of the Results .................................................................................................. 54 Comparison with Previous Studies ........................................................................................ 55 Results’ Limitations ................................................................................................................ 56 Connection of the Results in the Scientific Community ...................................................... 57. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 59 6.1. 6.2.. Summary .................................................................................................................................. 59 Future Work ............................................................................................................................ 60. 7.. References .......................................................................................................................... 62. 8.. Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 67 8.1. 8.2.. VII. Eco-design Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 67 Interview Guidelines ............................................................................................................... 68.

(9) Table of Figures Figure 1: The problem facing LCA from a Circular Economy perspective: the lack of data on consumers’ meantime of use ........................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: A representation from the ISO/TR14062 (2002) of the product design and development process, when environmental issues are also considered ....................................... 5 Figure 3: "The design process paradox" reproduced from (Ullman 1997) .................................. 6 Figure 4: The different lifespans of a product – ADEME (Fangeat and Chauvin 2016) ........... 10 Figure 5: Funnel process to define the research question .......................................................... 18 Figure 6: DRM Framework (Blessing and Chakrabarti 2009)................................................... 19 Figure 7: Types of design research projects and their main focus (Blessing and Chakrabarti 2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 8: The percentage of usability problems found according to the number of test users (Nielsen and Landauer 1993). .................................................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Organization of the data collection ............................................................................. 26 Figure 10: Filled monitoring grid for the five units of the surfboard sample 6’900 model. ...... 29 Figure 11: Monitoring grid filled by a partner for wetsuits monitoring .................................... 30 Figure 12: Flocked surfboard in test .......................................................................................... 30 Figure 13: Monitoring grid filled by school staff, an indication of the number of surfboard sessions and comments on the August month tab. ..................................................................... 31 Figure 14: BEUCHAT's organization regarding ageing data of products over time ................. 34 Figure 15: Definition of the personas to estimate the minimum lifespan goals (Olaian Internal) .................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16: User's Product Journey Map ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 17: Partner 3’s Surfboard Journey Map .......................................................................... 38 Figure 18: Results of the products list monitored throughout the study .................................... 39 Figure 19: Summary of the analysis of the data RDS on the wetsuit BLACK STEAMER 900 5.4MM MEN .............................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 20: Overview of the products under test and the number of hours of use per product. Shared spreadsheet, Total tab (2018/09/26). .............................................................................. 43 Figure 21: Monitoring results of the 6'100 Softboard with the timeline thresholds .................. 44 Figure 22: Evolution of the blue colour band over time on the 6’100 Softboard ...................... 44 Figure 23: Failures analysis of the 6'100 Softboard ................................................................... 45 Figure 24: Weight gain of the 6'100 Softboard .......................................................................... 45 Figure 25: Diagram of the Normative Lifespan Method applied to partners of the case study . 48 Figure 26: The "bathtub curve" (Abbott 1980). ......................................................................... 56 Figure 27: The Normative Lifespan Method for Water-Sports Products introduced in the representation from the ISO/TR14062 (2002) of the product design and development process59. Table of Tables Table 1: List of products to be tested ......................................................................................... 35 Table 2: Overview of the referencing grid Return of Defective Samples .................................. 40 Table 3: Grid of partner field tests feasibility based on interviews and observations ............... 42 Table 4: The defects analysis grid .............................................................................................. 46 Table 5: Tested Product’s Reference Value according to its Final Grade ................................. 52. VIII.

(10) Nomenclature ABTs: Accelerated Binary Tests ADDTs: Accelerated Destructive Degradation Tests ADEME: Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie - The French Environment and Energy Management Agency ALT: Accelerated Life Test ARMDTs: Accelerated Repeated Measures Degradation Tests AT: Accelerated Testing DRM: Design Research Methodology DS: Descriptive Study EESC: European Economic and Social Committee EST: Environmental Stress Testing FMEA: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis FSSD: Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development HALT: Highly Accelerated Life Test ISO: International Standardization Organization LCA: Life Cycle Assessment LLF: Long Lasting Factor MTBF: The Mean Time Between Failures MTTF: The Mean Time To Failure PS: Prescriptive Study QualAT: Qualitative Accelerated Tests QuanAT: Quantitative Accelerated Tests RAMS: Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety RC: Research Clarification RDS: Return Defective Sample RFID: Radio-Frequency Identification RPM: Returns Per Million SAFT: Scale-Accelerated Failure-Time Model SPs: Sustainability Principles STRIFE: Stress-Life WCED: World Commission on Environment and Development. IX.

(11) 1. Introduction 1.1.. Background. The industrial era has brought about a major change on earth. Products have been manufactured and are still manufactured today, to help people’s lives to be more comfortable. This production of products, born from people’s lifestyles and created in a mostly linear economy (from cradle to grave) has been proven to be closely linked to the growing number of environmental impacts that society is facing nowadays (Lemperos 2014). Studies (Poulikidou 2012, WCED 1987) on the life cycle of products have brought to light the different, both direct and indirect, environmental impacts that products have on the planet, due to the extraction of natural resources, manufacturing processes, transports, short lifespans, end of life management, energy consumption during manufacturing and the use. It is a global problem, thus governments, civil society, the private sector and citizens are concerned and need to act to find solutions (Poulikidou 2012). As stated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), the high-level goal is “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 15). During the last decade, awareness about the global environmental crisis has increased. In this way, “Europeans have clearly demonstrated their opposition to planned obsolescence. Consumers are generally in favour of products that are guaranteed to last longer” (AlibertDeprez 2016, p. 1). This encourages the private sector to evolve in a more sustainable way. Extending the life of products is becoming an increasingly important issue because it responds to growing consumer demand. A product’s durability can become a key factor for driving customer loyalty and satisfaction (Vasseur and Chasson 2018). Policymakers, the key players in the ecological transition, are searching for answers. Environmental regulations are increasing, at European and international level, examples of proenvironmental measures can be mentioned such as Integrated Product Policy (IPP), Extended Producer Responsibility (ERP), Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) and the environmental certification through the ISO 14000 series (Poulikidou 2012). The European Commission has initiated a shift towards the circular economy (European Commission 2020), an economy characterized by a zero waste and pollution production system. An action plan has been defined in 2015 with a roadmap targeting 2050 based on sustainable resources and where they also promote research on product durability. The Ecodesign Directive is one of the actions carried out by the European Commission to encourage companies to act in this way (Directive 2009/125/EC 2009). One of the problems is that manufacturers and product development companies do not master the lifetime of products they launch on the market. The electronic products sector has made great strides in terms of environmental impact reduction, labelling for consumers and reliability engineering with accelerated tests methods and tools (Meeker and Hamada 1995), but there is still a lot of research to be conducted in other product development areas. To guide consumers and help companies, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has analyzed how simply displaying the lifespan of products influences consumers' buying intentions (EESC 2016). European and international institutions have carried out several research projects regarding attitudes of consumers towards green products (TNS Political & Social 2013), and ways of evaluating a product’s environmental impact and 1.

(12) displaying it (ADEME 2016 B), following the consumer code and the series of ISO 1402X standards (NF EN ISO 14020: 2002, NF EN ISO 14021: 2001, NF EN ISO 14024: 2001 and NF ISO 14025: 2006). The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), for instance, is a strategic tool to evaluate the impact that a product can have on the environment during its entire lifecycle. This method requires an in-depth amount of data to have a more precise estimation of the product’s environmental impact, although today most of the data is focused on the product development phases and the end of life management, few data are gathered during the customer’s holding period. The institutions’ projects on product regulations are followed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME 2020). ADEME has made important studies on the extension of products’ lifetime and approached the notion of product normative lifespan, in order to help national companies and anticipates future laws regarding the display of the product lifespan. Although the importance of durability to the development of a circular economy has been recognized (Ricardo-AEA 2014b), a concrete concept for product durability has not yet been specifically addressed in European product policies, which opens up an opportunity for further research. A method defining a way to collect data and estimate a normative lifespan would help to fill the information in the consumer’s use phase of the Circular Economy diagram (see Figure 1), accessible by the design team while making an LCA of their product under development. From this database, useful information on products’ wear evolution could be extracted and could flow into action plans to improve the products’ lifespan, therefore enhance product environmental performances. Figure 1 illustrates the lack of data regarding consumer’s product meantime of use that the product development team is facing nowadays to be able to make a more accurate product’s life cycle analysis.. Figure 1: The problem facing LCA from a Circular Economy perspective: the lack of data on consumers’ meantime of use. 2.

(13) In terms of reliability testing for manufactured products, the electronics sector is in advance as highlighted previously. The case of the washing machine has been studied and it does not exist today a standardized procedure to test the minimum lifetime of the whole product, while safety standards already include minimum resistance requirements for specific parts (Tecchio, et al. 2017). Thus, standards are necessary for protocolled tests and information templates to measure the durability of products and performance over time. This real gap that researchers need to fulfill is claimed by the ADEME as important investigations to do in the future (Fangeat and Chauvin 2016). The possibility exists that, in the future, companies’ products will have to pass tests from standardization organizations about their potential lifespan, in order to prevent planned product obsolescence and promote innovation for longer-lasting products. The following question is raised; which method could estimate the normative lifespan of products to enhance environmental analysis and extend product lifespan? The sports industry is no exception to manufactured products, with sporting goods including plastic materials and textiles. They enter into the scope of the European Commission’s action plan to reach the circular economy (European Commission 2020). Hence, sports brands need to adjust their way of working, especially the water-sports products, to solve the paradox of being a sport dependent on nature while destroying it through its development. A last important point to mention is the environmental impact importance of the product design and development phase (Keoleian and Menerey 1993, Lewis and Gertsakis 2001). It has been revealed that manufactured products can have an environmental impact throughout their lifespan, but the specifications and materials are well decided at the early phase of the product development process. Therefore, having the most accurate information thanks to the LCA tool during this phase would help to make good decisions.. 1.2.. Objectives. The purpose of this research is to propose a method estimating the normative lifespan of current products during the early product development process, in the water-sports gear industry. The goal of this method is also to collect data throughout the test to create a relevant database characterizing the wear of products until they turn unusable. It will consequently increase the design team's level of information regarding their products.. 1.3.. Delimitation. The study focuses its work on water-sports products. These products are still a broad family of gear, but its purpose is to set a general method permitting designers to test their products more than to analyze in-depth product’s specificity or technical aspects. Gear for water-sports is considered as the following categories: textile, shoes, neoprene and heavy materials (metal, composite, plastic, foam) including surfboards for instance. Sports equipment that integrates electronic devices is excluded. The study focuses on products designed for individual use, while products for sports clubs with very intensive use are excluded but these organizations will be a key to this study.. 3.

(14) 1.4.. Thesis Research Questions. Based on the goals and scope of the study, here is the research question: How can products’ normative lifespan be estimated during the early product development process in the water-sports gear industry? From this research question comes other sub-questions: • • • •. How can the durability of a water-sports product be tested? How can the resistance of a water-sports product be tested? Can laboratory testing replace field-testing in the long term for water-sports products? How to combine laboratory and field-testing of products, for the water-sports gear industry?. The type of research question is “Comparative” as different methods can be designed based on designers’ experiences and scientific research. Then the goal is to test these different options by making some simulations, or field-testing, gathering the empirical data to analyze the results and draw a conclusion. The topic could be also considered as a “Problem-solving” type of research question. The problem here is to improve the estimation of the sports product’s normative lifespan. While many different ways of predicting it could be imagined, the thesis aims to design and test a method more based on a field study and see if it would be wise and feasible. The criteria of a successful method are a systematic, repeatable, adaptable and efficient method that would define the product normative lifespan in a short period. "Short" is seen here as being able to be integrated into the product development process, meaning having some results in a few weeks.. 4.

(15) 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1.. Key Concepts. 2.1.1. The Product Design and Development Process The product design and development process can vary a lot depending on companies. It is a complex process that is influenced by the company’s needs, resources (financial and human) and product specifications. Ulrich and Eppinger from their book Product Design and Development (2012) define the Product development as “the set of activities beginning with the perception of a market opportunity and ending in the production, sale, and delivery of a product” (Ulrich and Eppinger 2012, p. 2). To have a better idea of the different stages of the product development process, the International Standardization Organization (ISO) has developed a diagram (Figure 2) defining the process and taking into consideration environmental issues.. Figure 2: A representation from the ISO/TR14062 (2002) of the product design and development process, when environmental issues are also considered. This study aims to bring more information to support the Initial Phase, which is the design process part of product development. To have more information earlier in the process is a real opportunity to increase the product’s freedom of design, to influence its innovative and environmental impact. The “Freedom of design” mentioned in Figure 3 includes among other parameters: materials, dimensions, assembly methods, etc. Thus, the curves show well that earlier designers know the product's details, the best decision they will make for the product's lifespan. In 80-90% of designed products, the cost and environmental impacts are mainly determined at the design phases (Design Council 1997). And still, on these 80-90% products, around 15% of the manufacturing budget is used for the design process, but as most of the decisions for the product development process are made in the design phases, they hold the responsibility of the 85% cost remaining (Knight and Jenkins 2009).. 5.

(16) Figure 3: "The design process paradox" reproduced from (Ullman 1997). Therefore, to make the best decisions, designers have to act at the earliest phases of the product development process. A high level of knowledge during the design phase, thanks to the analysis of a product's environmental impact through its lifecycle, will allow designers to make good decisions to obtain the best environmental performance (Deutz, Mcguire and Neighbour 2013). 2.1.2. Eco-design In order to help companies evolving towards more sustainable development, the International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO, has standardized an Eco-design framework. It has been implemented to take place in the early phase of the design process and create a solid base with strategies for further product development. The ISO 14006 (2011) defines Eco-design as a “process integrated within the design and development that aims to reduce environmental impacts and continually to improve the environmental performance of the products, throughout their life cycle from raw material extraction to end of life”. To go further, the Eco-design promotes the extension of products’ lifetime through the points 6 and 7 of “The Ten Golden Rules” (refers to appendix 8.1.Eco-design Guidelines) adopted from Luttropp and Lagerstedt (2006, p. 1401): “SIX - Promote long life, especially for products with significant environmental aspects outside of the usage phase. SEVEN - Invest in better materials, surface treatments or structural arrangements to protect products from dirt, corrosion and wear, thereby ensuring reduced maintenance and longer product life.”. 6.

(17) These two guidelines confirm the importance of durability to the development of a circular economy as mentioned in the introduction. The study’s delimitation tallies with the area of products mentioned by point 6. For sports products, ways to improve their environmental impact are mostly on the other phases of the product’s lifecycle rather than during the use phase. During the use, sports products (except textiles) require little or no external intake like energy; therefore it is interesting to extend their lifespan to reduce their environmental impact (Fruleux 2018). In the case of textiles, these products require high external consumption (e.g., water, detergent, electricity) during its use phase (e.g., washing, drying, ironing). In the current state of knowledge in terms of environmental impact, it is consequently preferable to choose the garment that will have the longest lifespan. Extending the life of clothing by 30% can save 20% less CO2 emissions (Gracey and Moon 2012). 2.1.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) It exists many different methods and tools to help designers developing more sustainable products and services. The methods and tools can be qualitative, quantitative and also general frameworks and recommendations. In these categories of methods and tools, there are some simple to implement and others way more complicated, requesting a high degree of environmental knowledge (Poulikidou 2012). Starting from the definition of the ISO 14040 (2006), “Life Cycle Assessment is a quantitative method that evaluates the environmental performance of a product during its life cycle i.e. from the acquisition of the raw materials until the end of life and disposal.” Poulikidou (2012) describes the LCA as a time-consuming method, due to the important amount of data it requests to have an accurate estimate of the product’s environmental impact, from cradle (extraction of raw resources from the earth) to grave (when the product becomes a waste). Still, the same author considers that it is a useful method allowing design teams to detect where the focus of the designer should be in the product lifecycle, to improve the product's environmental performance. According to Poulikidou and the ISO 14040 (2006), it permits also to support decision-making and to compare different options of products or alternatives. 2.1.4. Durability Durability in the sense of longevity is a large topic and the use of this word can bring some misunderstanding when talking about the properties of a product. The whole thesis could be focused on research about defining a durable product and why it is relevant to improve this characteristic. The research is based on the definition found about the durability in the literature review. In this study, durability is merely to extend the duration of the use of a product. 2.1.4.1.. Interests of Extending a Product’s Lifespan. To extend a product's lifetime can have a different environmental impact depending on the product's category (ADEME 2016 A): •. A strong positive environmental impact for products that have their “hotspots”, in terms of environmental impact, in the production part or the end of life part of the product’s 7.

(18) • •. lifecycle. It is generally the case for clothes or sports gear that does not use electronic devices, thus this category will interest this study. For products that have their biggest environmental impact during the phase of use (cars, household appliances, etc.), it will not be relevant to extend the products' lifespan. For products that are concerned by innovations of rupture or new technologies arriving on their market, to extend the lifespan will not be justified if they produce more harm to the environment than the new technologies.. Fruleux (2018) says that reducing the environmental impact of a product is possible by extending its lifespan thanks to actions planned during the design phase, which are called ecodesign actions. These actions will ensure optimal use during a long period, avoiding technical intervention or repairs. The design teams should define the "long period", mentioned previously, in the product specifications according to the user’s needs. The functional analysis should be led on a defined product lifespan target to be able to include all the means and solutions to ensure suitable durability to the product. 2.1.4.2.. Durability Factors in the Design Phase. Five factors influence durability in the design phase: Resistance, Repairability, Timelessness, Scalability, and Compatibility (Fruleux 2018). These factors will be defined but as the goal of this study is to collect data to create a database characterizing the wear of products and estimating a normative lifespan, the factors that will be the most detailed here are Resistance and Repairability to stay within the framework of the study. Resistance Definition by the Cambridge Dictionary (Cambridge University Press 2016): “the ability to not be harmed or damaged”. Several steps need to be validated to design a resistant product as stated by Fruleux (2018): • • • • •. Raw material choice Manufacturing quality of the components The resistance of the assembly Amount of raw material per component adapted to the use Continuous improvement by analyzing breaking and wearing reasons on previous products and feedback from users. The last author mentioned agrees with Fangeat and Chauvin (2016) on the fact that a homogenous lifespan of the components forming the product is an important detail to avoid over-dimensioning. It is important to know that for some products the resistance is standardized to be sure of its property, as for Personal Protective Equipment. To stay in the example of wetsuits company designer, Patagonia, a sports gear and clothes company, is one of the leaders of the area in terms of long-lasting wetsuits. They have based their design choices to match their standards for warmth, strength and durability. And as even with the strongest wetsuits some issues may appear they have set up a wetsuit warranty, which “cover anything that appears to have failed under normal use, such as a blown seam, failed power seam seal or broken zipper” (Patagonia, Inc. 2018). This strategy brings us to the second factor of a durable product.. 8.

(19) Repairability Definition by the Cambridge Dictionary (Cambridge University Press 2016): “That can be changed and made better, or repaired”. As for the resistance, several points need to be validated to design a repairable product (Fruleux 2018): • • • •. Accessible assembly structures Products that can be easily dismantled or removed from its setting and readily reassembled or repositioned Ability to dismantle the product with standard tools Ability to dismantle the product alone Timelessness. Definition by the Cambridge Dictionary (Cambridge University Press 2020): “the quality of not changing as the years go past, or as fashion changes”. This parameter will influence designers on their choices regarding the aesthetic and the design of their products to be as least impacted as possible by wear and tear, and as least influenced as possible by sports products fashion (Fruleux 2018). Scalability Definition by the Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press 2020): “the fact that it is possible to adapt something to meet greater needs in the future”. To design a scalable product, designers need to think about a product that can adapt its main function, a product that can adapt its size to the user and a product based on a modular design. A modular design can adapt its components to new technologies and stay up-to-date (Fruleux 2018). Compatibility Definition by the Oxford Dictionary (Lexico.com 2020): “A state in which two things are able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict”. This is a parameter concerning more electronic devices. It involves the possibility in a design team to allow updates in software or to design types of plug-in connection that can be used for several products of the same categories (Fruleux 2018).. 2.2.. The Different Lifespans of a Product. 2.2.1. Key Concepts After having approached the notion of durability, it is important to take an overlook on the global lifespan of a product. A study of the ADEME (Mudgal, et al. 2012) defines four phases in the lifespan of a product, the normative lifespan, the period of use, the holding period and the product’s lifetime (Figure 4). It seems valuable to define here each phase before focusing on the one that will interest this study.. 9.

(20) The period of use is the period within which the product is ready to be used, from the commissioning of the product to the end of use by the user. The holding period is the time elapsed between the date of entry of a product into the household (not necessarily new) and its date of exit. The product’s lifetime is the period from when a product finishes being manufactured to the moment it is thrown away, recovered or recycled. Finally, the lifespan that will interest us the most for this study is the normative lifespan: the average operating time measured under specific test conditions, expressed in time, amount of cycles or without unit. It is therefore not present in Figure 4 as it is not a specific period of the product’s normal lifetime. The authors take the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) and the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) as examples. More than the four phases defined by the ADEME, Figure 4 shows the different steps a product goes through during its lifetime, from the end of manufacturing to the end of life. PRODUCT. End of Purchase Commissioning 1 End manufacturing / of the new of w Product is ready use Entrance in the product to be used market. WASTE. Second Commissioning C n End of use hand Product is ready (optiona P tto be used l). Waste manage Elimination ment Valorization. Period of use by user 1. Holding period of user 1. Period of use by user n. Reuse. Recycling. Holding period of user n. Total holding period (including potential repair and reuse). Product lifetime (including the possibility of reuse). Figure 4: The different lifespans of a product – ADEME (Fangeat and Chauvin 2016) 2.2.2. Public Opinion and Study of Future Laws Based on what has been approached in the Background (see Section 1.1), public opinion is evolving and the European organizations are making some investigations to analyze the potential of future laws to act against the environmental crisis and how the citizens could receive them. The EESC has made an interesting study on the influence of lifespan labelling on consumers. They displayed the products' lifetime on a shopping website to see if this 10.

(21) information would influence a consumer's decision to purchase a product. After 2 917 participants over five European countries were observed, the results showed that “if they had information on product lifetime, consumers would choose to buy longer-lasting products: on average, a product's sales increased by 56% if its lifetime was longer than the lifetime of competing products” (Dupré 2016, p. 1). There is an interesting difference in point of view between this last study and the study on consumers’ reactions to product obsolescence in emerging markets, with the case of Brazil (Echegaray 2015). On the one hand, there is a study that took place in Europe saying that 90% of participants would be ready to pay more for a certain type of product if it would last two years longer. On the other hand, a study says that product longevity plays a weak role in influencing consumer choice (T. Cooper 2004) and opinion surveys rank Brazil among the societies more inclined to prefer disposable (rather than reusable) products (Globescan and National Geographic 2012). It says also Brazilians “pay marginal attention to product durability and the means by which to maximize product lifespan” (Echegaray 2015, p. 10). Here is an example that public opinion on the durability of products can change a lot depending on countries. It is important to note that in this text, the research is based on lectures from 2004. It is assumed that consumer’s perception and criteria are depending on countries and that public opinion has changed since the last two decades regarding the global environmental crisis. This change, in the way that the public perceives environmental issues, is explained by the increasing coverage of sustainability concepts in the media (Holt and Barkemeyer 2012, Barkemeyer, et al. 2017, Boykoff 2007). Another explanation based on EESC’s results is that the number of people in the will to pay for a longer-lasting product was varying depending on the GDP of the country where they lived (EESC 2016). Governments and organizations are increasing pressure on industries for them to integrate faster guidelines, methods and strategies that take into account the environment into their product planning processes and development (Lemperos 2014). This is proved by the number of frameworks and policies that came up during the last decade, both introduced by policymakers (Directive 2009/125/EC 2009) and the industries that developed environmental management strategies (ISO 14000 series), also several tools and guidelines including environmental perspectives as Design for Environment (DfE) and Eco-Design frameworks (Poulikidou 2012). As from their study, citizens said that they were prepared to pay more for products that last longer. In the same study, the SIRCOME agency considers that "with mandatory display of lifetime, manufacturers will have to meet consumers' expectations” (Dupré 2016, p. 3). They are in favour of banning product obsolescence from Europe, and support a better education of consumers thanks to, for instance, a display of products estimated lifespan while purchasing. On December 17th of 2015, the European Commission mandated the European organizations of standardization to work on the definition of parameters and methods to evaluate durability, repair, reuse and remanufacturing of products. 2.2.3. The Interests of a Product’s Normative Lifespan After having defined the important words and drawn the landscape of the study, it was important to highlight the trends regarding industries and policies. The literature review has revealed that some information is missing in the knowledge of a product’s lifetime in the early. 11.

(22) design process. The focus is now on the understanding of which advantages could be extracted from identifying the Normative Lifespan for water-sports products. Concerning manufactured products, shorter lifespans have been defended in the past to promote technological innovation, business growth and healthy economics (Fishman, Neil and Oz 1993). While this same strategy was revealed linked to terrible environmental consequences like resource depletion, pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions (T. Cooper 2005). As time goes and environmental consequences grow up, greater product longevity has been pointed out as a simple solution to reduce waste and increase material productivity (Von Weizsacker, Lovins and Lovins 1997). The importance of product lifetime extension is linked to the interest of exploring the normative lifespan of a product. Based on the study of Fangeat and Chauvin (2016) the ADEME (2016 A) has given its opinion to extend product lifetime. For them, five topics need to be further explored: 1) Measure a product’s lifetime The measure of a product’s lifetime requests to develop standardized assessment methods that will integrate the resistance of the product but also its repairability, its compatibility with external systems and its scalability says the ADEME. The French public agency considers that this could also allow integrating durability criteria into the European Eco label's references. These standardized assessment methods do not exist yet and for sports gear, developing a method focusing on the resistance of the product and estimating a normative lifespan would help to do the first step towards a complete measurement of a product's lifetime. 2) Assess benefits earned from product lifetime extension In this second topic, the author considers that to assess the environmental benefits earned from a product lifetime extension, an LCA has to be conducted. An analysis of the economic consequences (employment and business activity) of such a decision is also suggested. The French agency presents it as a necessary assessment to identify product categories where the environmental benefits earned are the greatest. It is an interesting hypothesis for this study as the estimation of a normative lifespan, in the early product development process, aims to have more precise LCA by filling this method with more reliable data from the use phase. 3) Take actions towards manufacturers The ADEME wants to promote long-lasting products to manufacturers thanks to Eco-design guidelines. Establishing a product minimum quality threshold to be able to enter the market can also support this promotion, the agency says. It also proposes the extension of the legal guarantee of conformity, which could also help extend the life of the products. The agency warns that the analysis of the impacts of a change from this legal guarantee of conformity from 2 years currently to 5 years or more, for certain categories of products, should be carried out. 4) Take actions towards consumers The fourth topic is, for the French agency, to encourage and support changes in consumers’ behaviour. The first step is to inform about the product’s lifespan. From its study, the product’s lifespan can be normalized and displayed to be easily accessible and understandable (in hours of use or number of cycles for instance). This normative lifespan could:. 12.

(23) • • •. Educate consumers while buying products. Make consumers responsible during the use phase about maintenance and storage. Give consumers the habits to repair and reuse.. For the ADEME, the targets to communicate through this indicator are to raise awareness on the long-term financial benefits of long-lasting products for the buyer. If buyers can have a product lifetime as a reference, they would know until when they should be able to use the product. 5) Support the repair sector In this last point, the ADEME suggests supporting the training of service and maintenance staff, promote certification, promote the dissemination of repair guides from manufacturers, develop 3D printing to produce repair parts on-demand or to support self-repair aid initiatives such as Repair Cafés®.. 2.3.. Product Lifespan Estimate. The core of this thesis is to develop a method to estimate the normative lifespan of water-sports gear. Thus, a topic directly linked to the first point of the previous title: Measure a product's lifetime. To estimate the normative lifespan would be the first step towards this final goal. To estimate a product lifespan relates to Reliability Engineering. Meeker and Hamada (1995) and Meeker and Escobar (2004) described the modern quality philosophy for producing highreliability products; according to them, this philosophy is made possible by improving the design and manufacturing processes instead of reliance on inspection. This modern quality philosophy supports the increase of upfront testing practices of materials, components and systems (Escobar and Meeker 2006). The current problem that experts in reliability have to face is expressed by the long-life expectancy of modern products, in line with the philosophy mentioned above. Some products are designed to last for years or decades without failure, thus it is a complex task to estimate their failure time-distribution or long-term performance. The time allowed for testing components and systems during the product development process will not always permit one to test them in normal use conditions. According to Figure 2, the period to assess a product or a prototype’s reliability would be interesting to be implemented once the Detailed Design is done. The Testing-Prototype phase of the development process would suit if the prototype can come from the production site and with the components that have been selected for production. But it can also be used for the Product review phase, in a continuous improvement mindset, to improve the lifespan of a product already on the market for instance. Let's make an overview of what types of methods exist today. 2.3.1. Laboratory Tests The tests in laboratories for product development are simulations of the product’s environment in a laboratory by recreating the stress conditions and repeating it.. 13.

(24) Aim and use Engineers in the manufacturing industries have developed methods such as accelerated testing (AT) experiments, which are run to collect reliability information quickly. Noor Choudhury (2017) defines AT as a support to evaluate or demonstrate elements reliability (from material to entire systems) and to detect failure modes. The results of these tests are used to predict the life of the units at use conditions. Thus, for this author, it allows manufacturers to solve problems, if failure modes are detected, before introducing products in use to the field. Escobar and Meeker (2006) specify that ATs are also used in manufacturing industries to certify components, to compare different manufacturers, and so on.. Laboratory Tests Method To go deeper into the method, Escobar and Meeker (2006) explain that test units of a material, component, subsystem or entire system apply higher-than-usual levels of one or more accelerating variables such as temperature or stress. They add to their review of Accelerated Test Models: “An important characteristic of all ATs is the need to extrapolate outside the range of available data: tests are done at accelerated conditions, but estimates are needed at use conditions. Such extrapolation requires strong model assumption.” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 555) The authors claim also that extrapolation is generally backed with physically motivated models or a combination of empirical models with enough previous experience in testing similar units. In the reliability area, the “quantitative accelerated tests” (QuanAT) and “qualitative accelerated tests” (QualAT) are the two different kinds of tests included in the terms “accelerated test” (Escobar and Meeker 2006). The first kind of test, the QuanAT, tests units thanks to combinations of higher-than-usual levels of certain accelerating variables. The researchers have generally a background knowledge regarding the relationship between the failure mechanism and the accelerating variables for the identified failure modes of the tested units. This relationship will determine a statistical model that can support the extrapolation to use conditions. The purpose of this kind of test is to acquire information about the failure-time distribution or degradation distribution at specified “use” levels of these variables. To improve the background knowledge regarding watersports products’ failure modes, it seemed valuable to first identify thoroughly the weaknesses that could appear. Based on this and the following definition of the QualAT, the focus will be, as a first step, on this second type of AT. The same authors define a QualAT as a method that “tests units at higher-than-usual combinations of variables like temperature cycling and vibration.” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 553). A QualAT can have specific names such as HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Tests), STRIFE (Stress-Life) and EST (Environmental Stress Testing). These researchers describe these tests’ goal as the identification of product weaknesses generated by flaws in the product’s design or manufacturing process. Therefore, the tests are useful to make changes to these two important parts of the product development process. However, researchers say that using the raw data from these tests to make decisions is risky, as what happened in a QualAT might not. 14.

(25) be representative of what should happen in normal use, hence these tests are considered as being non-statistical.. Different Types and Methods of Acceleration To obtain reliability information, Escobar and Meeker (2006) list several methods of acceleration. The first method “Increase the use rate of the product” is particularly relevant to test the water-sports product. As explained by the authors “this method is appropriate for products that are ordinarily not in continuous use” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 554), which is the case for surfing equipment for instance. The other methods of acceleration will be approached in Section 4.1.7.. Different Types of Responses The authors have listed different types of responses that exist in the accelerated field-testing such as Accelerated Binary Tests (ABTs), Accelerated Life Tests (ALTs), Accelerated Destructive Degradation Tests (ADDTs). The type of response that will interest this study is an Accelerated Repeated Measures Degradation Tests (ARMDTs), as explained by the author: “In an ARMDT, one measures degradation on a sample of units at different points in time. In general, each unit provides several degradation measurements. The degradation response could be actual chemical or physical degradation or performance degradation (e.g., drop in power output).” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 554-555) The ability to measure degradations related to time, from physical to performance degradation is important for this thesis.. Statistical models for acceleration To add precisions on the models mentioned in the part: Laboratory Tests Method, the implementation of accelerated tests requests the use of “physically reasonable statistical models” to correlate accelerating variables (e.g., pressure, temperature, use rate, etc.) with time acceleration. The goal is to be able to process the tests to a high rate of the accelerating variables that will create quick flaws to reduce test length. Then thanks to the model used, it is possible to process the accelerated test data and estimate the effects on the product in use conditions, generally lower levels of the accelerating variables (Escobar and Meeker 2006). Many different models exist, among those, one is interesting for this study in line with the type of acceleration identified previously. The “use-rate acceleration” has a specific model to be able to extrapolate accelerated test data to use conditions. The conditions to use this model are that “the time scale and cycling rate (or frequency) should not affect the cycles-to-failure distribution.” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 557). It means that between each cycle the system has the time to go back to a stable state (e.g., cool down). Here, a question deserves to be asked: Are watersports products subject to change from their stable state during use? As the study excludes sports gear that integrates electronic devices, and few mechanical complex. 15.

(26) systems exist in this scope, it is assumed that this model can answer a broad range of sports products, thus supports this thesis to set the general guidelines to help designers. It is considered as a simple situation for statistical models when the cycles-to-failure distribution does not depend on the cycling rate. The same authors recommend the application of the SAFT, where A F (UseRate) = UseRate ⁄ UseRateU is the factor by which the test is accelerated, and UseRateU denotes use conditions. Scale-Accelerated Failure-Time Model (SAFT) is a common model in the statistical literature where it is considered as the “accelerated failure-time model”. The SAFT content can be specified here based on their research: “Under a SAFT model, lifetime at x, T(x), is scaled by a deterministic factor that might depend on x and unknown fixed parameters. More specifically, a model for the random variable T(x) is SAFT if T(x) = T( ) ⁄ AF (x), where the acceleration factor AF (x) is a positive function of x satisfying AF ( ) = 1. Lifetime is accelerated (decelerated) when AF (x) > 1 [AF (x) < 1]” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 556). In terms of distribution quantiles, (1). . . To read further on the application of this model see Escobar and Meeker’s (2006) studies. So, for this simple use-rate acceleration model, one considers that the only variable parameter is the number of cycles. Therefore, other environmental parameters should be controlled to simulate actual use environments. For surfboards for example, this kind of test cannot provide reliable results in this study’s scope due to this constraint, as designers cannot consider the other variables that will influence product’s wear (e.g., user’s weight, wax hardness, UV, water temperature, reef or sand, storage conditions, etc.). The same research says that some accelerated tests include more than one accelerating variable when it is known that several parameters can influence degradation and failure. The test parameters can also be engineering variables that are not accelerating variables such as material type, design, operator, and so forth. The danger if several failure modes exist is that the failure mechanisms will not evolve at the same rate, in this way, if it is not taken into account in the test’s modelling the estimates will be incorrect after extrapolation in use conditions. The authors advise that most importantly ATs must reproduce the same failure mode occurring in the field. Reliability engineering takes different product examples from the electronic or mechanical sector (e.g., rolling bearings), but the conditions are to a certain extent different from the watersports industry limits of this study. These methods can be of great inspiration; however, the models cannot be directly copied due to the number of parameters that influence the life of a water-sports product. Statistical models for acceleration suiting to water-sports products have not been found. R. Pan (2009, p. 1) generalize this observation stating: “It is found that a product's field failure characteristic may not be directly extrapolated from the accelerated life testing results because of the variation of field use condition that cannot be replicated in the lab-test environment”. Therefore, continuing the research towards accelerated field-testing makes sense to be closer to use conditions.. 16.

(27) 2.3.2. Field Tests Nelson (1990, p. 37-39) approaches the notion of an “elephant test”. He describes the “elephant test” as a standard engineering practice that reveals failure modes and allows improving a product. Escobar and Meeker (2006) place it in the “qualitative accelerated tests” (QualAT). A “good elephant” does not have a strict method to follow, it generally requires engineering knowledge, experience, insight and luck to be appropriately devised, but must “produces the same failures and in the same proportions that will occur in service” (Nelson 1990, p. 38). Elephant tests, from their definition, can include field tests. These kinds of tests can be used in quality control in production, for instance. Escobar and Meeker (2006) have also an interesting remark regarding accelerated test programs: “Accelerated test programs should be planned and conducted by teams including individuals knowledgeable about the product and its use environment, the physical/chemical/mechanical aspects of the failure mode, and the statistical aspects of the design and analysis of reliability experiments.” (Escobar and Meeker 2006, p. 574) Who is more knowledgeable about water-sports products and its use environment than the sports organizations themselves? So, merging design teams with sports clubs and schools to develop co-creation can have an interesting result for this study. R. Pan (2009) suggests merging field-testing and lab-testing to identify a product's field failure characteristic. This researcher considers field failure observations as the most direct and reliable data to define the product’s failure distribution in its use environment. Although appropriate observation means can be complicated to implement and the field tests can request a long time to have meaningful data. It was particularly observed for manufacturers when introducing new products. For these two reasons, time and data accuracy, the tests in laboratories (see Section 2.3.1) are an interesting solution, although the real stress profile experienced by the product when many variables are involved in its environment cannot be perfectly simulated. Therefore, R. Pan proposes to use both kinds of tests and find the correlation between both failures. Patagonia, an outdoor-sports gear manufacturer renowned for its environmental commitment has included durability as a guideline since its early days. For them, a Patagonia designer has to ask himself a defined quantity of core questions to see if the new product in development fits their standards. “Is it durable?” is one of these questions. As written in the company founder’s book (Chouinard 2005), “to get all the components of a Patagonia product to be roughly equal in durability, we test continually in both the lab and the field”. As products are made from many different components, they used an empirical method by testing the product until something fails, then strengthen that part, and testing again until something else fails, and so forth.. 17.

(28) 3. Method The definition of the research problem came out thanks to a “funnel” process, from the top (overview of the area) expressing the general knowledge that was interesting the author at the beginning of the project, to the bottom (the specific problem) going narrower and narrower to the final subject (Figure 5). The durability of sports products from an eco-design perspective What is the durability?. Durability for what? (Water) Sports Gear. How to assess the resistance of a product or a prototype?. Design product durability (or resistance?) protocol?. Development of a Normative Lifespan Method for water-sports products in the early Product Development Process. Figure 5: Funnel process to define the research question. Once the specific problem was identified, the thesis process could start following the research strategy.. 3.1.. Research Strategy. This research aims to develop a method for product testing and has, therefore, a product design and development interest. Hence, the Design Research Methodology (DRM) Framework (Blessing and Chakrabarti 2009) was the most natural of choices to support this study. DRM will be led through four stages in this thesis (Figure 6), where all the stages are linked by the main process flow (illustrated by the bold arrows) with iterations between each step (illustrated by the light arrows).. 18.

(29) Figure 6: DRM Framework (Blessing and Chakrabarti 2009) Figure 6 shows the basic means requested in each stage and the main outcomes. The four stages of this systematic research approach are: 1. Research Clarification (RC): the researchers define the research goal thanks to a literature review. Here, an initial description of the existing situation is drawn, as well as a description of the desired situation. 2. Descriptive Study I (DS-I): a literature review is also conducted to improve the initial description of the existing situation. The goal of this stage is to identify factors influencing the thesis’ success, but as the level of information in the literature is generally not sufficient, studies are conducted to collect empirical data and improve the understanding of the existing situation. 3. Prescriptive Study (PS): now that the existing situation attains an interesting level of understanding, the desired situation can be elaborated. The researchers develop the support that will influence the success factors to achieve the desired situation. 4. Descriptive Study II (DS-II): the support is evaluated through empirical studies in this last stage. Observations and conclusions regarding the influence of the support to attain the desired situation are made. It exists seven types of research within the DRM framework (see Figure 7), as not all types of research need to go through the four stages. The authors of DRM analyzed that the type of research was determined thanks to the research questions and hypotheses, and the available time and resources. Each stage of the DRM process requires a specific type of study adapted to the study’s aim. Three types of study are defined: • •. A review-based study, which is based entirely on the literature review. A comprehensive study, which involves a literature review and an empirical study where the results are produced by the researcher, to develop or evaluate a support.. 19.

(30) •. An initial study, which completes a project, shows the results’ consequences and prepares them to be used by others.. Figure 7: Types of design research projects and their main focus (Blessing and Chakrabarti 2009). Considering the available time and that the research question of this thesis aimed to develop a support estimating a product normative lifespan, the type of Design Research selected is method 5 from the DRM Framework (highlighted in green in Figure 7). Blessing and Chakrabarti (2009) define method 5 as the Development of Support Based on a Comprehensive Study of the Existing Situation. Method 5 is described as a combination of types 2 and 3 where the purpose is to develop support, but there is a poor level of knowledge in the existing situation.. 3.2.. Data Collection. 3.2.1. Company Experience at OLAIAN (DECATHLON) To write down this thesis, a lot of knowledge in product development comes from the nine months of experience earned within the surfing brand, OLAIAN, at the Water Sports Center by DECATHLON, in Hendaye (France). A project on the durability of the surfing gear has been led in partnership with the company and four different surfing organizations (schools, clubs, academy, etc.) that will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.3. To start the project, it was important to understand and write down the meaning for the brand regarding this mission in order to do not forget the aim throughout the process. OLAIAN has decided to integrate Sustainable Development as one of the five pillars of the development of its commercial offer. While the current state of its activity cannot respect the. 20.

(31) Sustainability Principles (SPs) of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) (Robért, et al. 2004) fully, the brand has decided to push its commitment to sustainable development through products that last a maximum in time as a first step. The Brand Manager Stéphane Saigre states, “Extending the life of our products, this is what will enable us to be recognized as a brand. However, this will not prevent us from working on projects such as ecodesign, recycling, etc.” (Joly 2018, p. 52). This experience in a sporting goods designer and retailer was an opportunity to conduct interviews and observations to complete the study. The research has started with the available information from the company, mostly internal studies and theses. 3.2.2. Interviews The research area of accelerated testing in sports products is relatively undeveloped in the academic world, so the research method: “qualitative interview” is interesting to increase the level of knowledge (Ritzén 2000, Beskow 2000, Strauss and Corbin 1998). It allows also taking the opportunity of being surrounded by industrial product development activities in the company and comparing them with the theory of the area. Interviews were valuable to build a solid base of knowledge in the RC part; they were conducted as well in DS-I to deepen the knowledge and in DS-II to validate the support. Interviews were led with different people involved in the product development process from DECATHLON. The interviews were more informal, conversational style and conducted throughout the project from March 2018 to September 2018. In total, 19 interviews were conducted within Olaian to understand their needs behind the project, but also within different brands of the company such as Quechua or Tribord to earn experience on the topic and discover their practices in terms of durability. This exercise in detail allowed the researcher to have exchanges with 10 Product Engineers, 3 Sustainability Engineers/Searchers, 2 Component and Technology Engineers, 2 Product Managers, 1 Technical Manager and 1 Brand Manager. To broaden the knowledge, more formal interviews were conducted with two other companies: one Product Engineer from the diving equipment manufacturer BEUCHAT, working on some plastic-based products, and a Sail Engineer-Designer (R&D) from the sailmaker Incidence Sails and questions were prepared (see Appendix 8.2). Finally, it was important to interview the clubs and sports organizations, as they use the most sports products, to understand their needs, the frequency of use and the environment surrounding tested products to co-design monitoring protocols with them. This part is further developed in section 3.4.3. For the interviews conducted face to face, field notes were taken to capture data. This method was used with the DECATHLON interviewees and the interviews with the sports organizations and Incidence Sails. As the Product Engineer from BEUCHAT was contacted by phone, the discussion was registered with his authorization to be able to summarize the data after the discussion.. 21.

No results found