Post by account_disabled on Mar 14, 2024 0:28:06 GMT -5
My last article centered on innovation and sustainability – or creating “new” value – and the role of green innovation in product design and manufacturing. Recently I’ve been reading about, and hearing about, “frugal engineering,” or, it is sometimes referred to, as “frugal innovation.” As an engineer I’m happy to have the terms innovation and engineering used interchangeably.
Frugal engineering usually refers to reducing CG Leads the complexity and cost of some good and the production of it so that, for example, it might be more accessible in developing economies. Wikipedia defines frugal engineering in this way and states that the term “refers to removing nonessential features from a durable good, such as a car or phone, in order to sell it in developing countries.
Designing products for such countries may also call for an increase in durability and selling them, reliance on unconventional distributions channels. Sold to so-called “overlooked consumers”, firms hope volume will offset razor-thin profit margins. Globalization and rising incomes in developing countries may also drive frugal innovation.”
Importantly, the result of frugal engineering is not products (or processes) with inferior quality. But there is an emphasis on low cost of product. So, to insure reasonable margin, production must be similarly efficient.
There is always a tension between “built to last” and “built to last long enough!” This becomes a major issue in closed loop systems such as those illustrated with the Ricoh Comet Circle and other closed loop scenarios. We covered the comet circle some time ago. (And from Ricoh). The comet circle, shown below from Ricoh,
shows both the forward and reverse logistics path we’ve discussed before – material flowing via the product to the consumer and then material flowing to other uses after product use by the consumer.
The “most sustainable” here is the loop that goes back to the consumer with the same product providing the same function. The challenge of “built to last” vs “built to last long enough” plays an important role here. Products with long lives will be more reasonably returned to similar use at a similar functional level. Products which fail, or the obnoxious subset of failure, being overcome by new technology, will have longer loops and, by definition, be less sustainable.
Frugal engineering usually refers to reducing CG Leads the complexity and cost of some good and the production of it so that, for example, it might be more accessible in developing economies. Wikipedia defines frugal engineering in this way and states that the term “refers to removing nonessential features from a durable good, such as a car or phone, in order to sell it in developing countries.
Designing products for such countries may also call for an increase in durability and selling them, reliance on unconventional distributions channels. Sold to so-called “overlooked consumers”, firms hope volume will offset razor-thin profit margins. Globalization and rising incomes in developing countries may also drive frugal innovation.”
Importantly, the result of frugal engineering is not products (or processes) with inferior quality. But there is an emphasis on low cost of product. So, to insure reasonable margin, production must be similarly efficient.
There is always a tension between “built to last” and “built to last long enough!” This becomes a major issue in closed loop systems such as those illustrated with the Ricoh Comet Circle and other closed loop scenarios. We covered the comet circle some time ago. (And from Ricoh). The comet circle, shown below from Ricoh,
shows both the forward and reverse logistics path we’ve discussed before – material flowing via the product to the consumer and then material flowing to other uses after product use by the consumer.
The “most sustainable” here is the loop that goes back to the consumer with the same product providing the same function. The challenge of “built to last” vs “built to last long enough” plays an important role here. Products with long lives will be more reasonably returned to similar use at a similar functional level. Products which fail, or the obnoxious subset of failure, being overcome by new technology, will have longer loops and, by definition, be less sustainable.