Conversor análogo-digital de los canales de corriente

The work plan to develop a new methodology identified in chapter 3 had a step-wise approach to build on each section of investigation. The concept was to use learning loops, like those used by

Deming and Boyd to lead up to an overall methodology (Deming, 1952) (Richard, 2004). This approach

has resulted in a successful conclusion, in that a methodology was developed (the framework, consisting of a guideline, assessment method and implementation process, see chapter 5). There has been benefits delivered on the journey (see the new technology area, section 5.3 and the implementation, see section 6.1).

In taking this approach the methodology had constant feedback, which has led to a tailored result for the industrial gas sector. While the step-wise approach breaks down challenges into more manageable activities it does follow an incremental path. A faster result may have been achieved by not using feedback loops or considering how to tailor the process. Without feedback or tailoring it is likely that an improved methodology would still be delivered, but it is unlikely to be as robust.

The approach promoted a set of distinct tasks, which in the case of the trial for improved sustainability and the new technology study were quite isolated activities to the main development. The extension in the life of a gas cylinder (chapter 4) sits as an almost individual piece of work. Similarly the exploration into the application of new technologies (section 5.3) works as a stand-alone activity too. There are benefits of this approach in that each area of activity is individually justifiable and has been worked through to ensure it achieves the intended goals. In this view the do or act element of a learning cycle is completed and therefore the next set of work has the opportunity to observe and

orient from the findings (Deming, 1952) (Richard, 2004). But in taking this approach it questions if the

results will be as valid when combined with the whole methodology. This is hopefully addressed by testing on the implementation activity. It could be argued that taking all the ideas and testing in one go is a more effective route. Another alternative would be to develop and test several different methodologies. In both options it may be more difficult to identify what is and what is not working well in comparison to the approach used. As it was expected the methodology developed would cover new areas then it was important to see what was working and not working well.

Research was undertaken to define sustainability, what is sustainable development and sustainable product development methods. The work identified a preferred definition of sustainability using the terms efficiency, equity and environment. Promising methods to sustainable development were highlighted such as the five capitals approach and various frameworks and guidelines. An area to address with these was over complexity and this has driven decisions in the new product development process. For example the five capitals model could have been used in the new methodology but it was felt this may have added complexity and have some difficulties in defining exact areas of performance to each capital. It was observed that the five capitals model may need some adaptation and has more challenges to work with than other product development methods. These challenges are associated to the social capital and human capital aspects particularly. This indicates the system may be better utilised in organisational level decision making.

Past activities in sustainable development were observed to be over environmentally focused (Maxwell & van der Vorst, 2010) (Kaebernick, Kara, & Sun, 2003) and/or over complex (Hallstedt, 2008) (Byggeth, Broman, & Karl-Henrik, 2007) . As a result the methods had limited application (Choi, Nies, & Ramani, 2008) (Hoffman, 2007).

There has been a few areas where local information on a limited environmental benefit has been observed. It raises a question of if there is still an improved balance of environmental performance to implementation success that can be achieved. Is a successful implementation likely to have a reduced environmental performance?

Advancements in product development processes were considered with best practice methods identified (Cooper, Edgett, & Klienschmidt, 2004) (Macintyre, 2010). Trends in product development approaches were observed such as disruptive innovation (Linton & Walsh, 2004) and portfolio management (Wheelwright & Clark, 2011) (Morris & Pinto, Project program & portfolio maangement, 2007). However, these methods on their own do not deliver on sustainable prodcuts. Collectively they exhibit an emphasis on efficiency.

The approach considered the development of an overarching new methodology as opposed to focused improvements in specific areas to form best practices. This approach was used as it had been observed in literature that individual improvement tools failed to achieve the full benefits of the tool. Often this was due to limitations in adoption and integrating with other company practices. The approach leads to the development of a framework, guideline, assessment method and an implementation method. These tools provide a robust system that addresses the gaps in the literature and the needs of stakeholders, managers and practitioners.

As the work developed additional focus on the implementation of the methodology was needed. Implementation was taken both as a separate work item and as an integral part of methodology development. A learning from the failures of others is that, having a desirable system will dramatically increase the success of implementation.

In the approach taken the individual test areas were highly manageable but some presented extreme step changes for the interacting areas both in business operations and processes. It was observed that the interfacing elements of the business saw familiarity within the total process. This may not be true in the replication of implementation, therefore consideration should be given as to how to manage a large step change. In the completion of this work it is felt that the approach to implementation has worked well and can handle the step change. The main area for improvement is in the replication activities, which can be conducted as further work.

6.2.2 Findings in the development of a new sustainable product development methodology