Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2017, Vol. 9(7) 1–19
Ó The Author(s) 2017
Establishing sustainable design and DOI: 10.1177/1687814017709699
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
development for plastic mold under
product service system

Yu-Chen Huang1, Jui-Che Tu2 and Kuo-Pin Kuo3

Abstract
Face the energy recovery and environmental concerns and policy, the plastic molds design and develop have to focus on the
issues of the lead-free, non-toxic, recyclable, re-manufactured, and integrate environmental protection and technology etc.
Hence, this study adopts the product service system to integrate product and service to meet consumer demands.
Furthermore, this system concept combines the procedures of design, manufacture, and distribution. This procedure of ser-
vice supply will improve product life cycle for reduced environmental impact, satisfy the concepts of the reuse and remanu-
facturing of raw materials, reduce production waste, and further achieve the purpose of dematerialization. The purpose of
this research is to construct the impact factors of the sustainable design and development of plastic molds on product ser-
vice. This study integrates expert interviews and the literature review to list the principles of the sustainable design and
development of plastic molds; the results of this study sum up 6 capital dimensions and 30 evaluation indicators, which are
analyzed through the analytical hierarchy process, and add the plastic mold application process to provide complete products
and services that improve the sustainable design, development process, and evaluation criteria of plastic molds.

Keywords
Product service system, sustainable design and development, plastic mold, analytical hierarchy process, dematerialization

Date received: 27 September 2016; accepted: 18 April 2017

Academic Editor: Stephen D Prior

Introduction development are valued internationally. In Taiwan, the

Plastics, which transform everyday life and make life
more convenient, have been a part of daily life for a
century. Almost all aspects of daily life involve plastics;
however, such daily necessities present modern eco-
nomic and social problems, meaning the excessive over-
use of natural resources, which lead to the situations of
energy shortage, environmental pollution, and global
warming. Governments must gradually address these
problems through energy and environmental actions
and policies such as waste electrical and electronic
equipment regulation (WEEE), restriction of hazardous
substances directive (RoHS), extra low voltage (ELV),
and Enterprise Unified Process (EuP),1 which show
that environmental protection and sustainable ecology
Export Trade is the main business; however, due to the
Asian financial crisis, international oil and steel prices
have risen, which led the economy into a slump.
1
Department of Creative Design and Architecture, National University of
Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
2
Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science and
Technology, Douliou, Taiwan
3
Graduate Program of Design and Art College, Da-Yeh University,
Dacun, Taiwan
Corresponding author:
Yu-Chen Huang, Department of Creative Design and Architecture,
National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung 81148, Taiwan.
Email: ych3993@nuk.edu.tw

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
According to the analysis of the Metal Industries
Research & Development Centre, mold products and
production and marketing are highly related industries.
Recently, the export orders for electronics and informa-
tion communication products were substantially
reduced in 2016, electronics export orders declined by
26%, information and communications technology
(ICT) products declined by 20.2%, and machinery
products declined by 49.4%;2 thus, plastic products and
molds influence the industry. In view of this, the mold
industry requires accelerated transformation to enhance
the added value of mold products and satisfy consu-
mers, international regulations, fashionable product
designs, and the environment. Thus, how to follow fash-
ion trend changes should be valued to solve the problem
between the developments of the industry and the envi-
ronment in an economic and coexistence manner, in
order to facilitate industry developments in the future.
In recent years, the development of internationally
advanced countries has comprehensively transformed
the traditional business model to a service-oriented
model, which has increased interactions between consu-
mers and corporations to develop products that fit con-
sumer’s requirements.3 Moreover, when the
environment is considered and integrated into product
design and development, it would improve sustainable
development and product life cycle for each stage.4
Enhanced environmental awareness results in the
beginning of an era of a green economy, where global
emphasis is placed on sustainable development; thus,
the development of plastic products should focus on
being lighter, with no lead or poison, and can be
recycled and reproduced, which represents the combi-
nation of environmental protection design and tech-
nology. The issues of energy and environment are
important, which makes it more difficult for the plas-
tic mold industry to develop. Nevertheless, the con-
cept of a product service system (PSS) is a new
concept based on environmental protection and eco-
nomic orientation, which combines products with ser-
vices to meet consumption demands, in order to reach
the goal of product dematerialization. At the same
time, this concept uses a PSS to integrate design,
manufacture, and marketing, with the aim of reduc-
ing the product’s impact on the environment during
its life cycle, repeatedly using and reproducing prod-
ucts, raw materials, or components, improving the
usage effectiveness of resources, and reducing the
production of waste. In this way, the objective of
dematerialization can be reached.5,6
Therefore, this study takes the PSS as the starting
point, applies its theory to plastic molding, and studies
and explores it at the level of environmental consider-
ation and product development, by considering the
principles and strategy of sustainability in order to
Figure 1. Study relationship.
understand the demands and elements of a sustainable
plastic mold industry (Figure 1). Thus, analysis will
focus on the development procedures of plastic molds,
the principle of green design, and other relevant strate-
gies, with the expectation of enhancing market compe-
titiveness by providing competitive advantage methods.
This study emphasizes the concept of dematerialization
through a PSS and studies the development and appli-
cation procedures of plastic molding to develop a
development mode that meets the demand for the sus-
tainable development of plastic molds.7,8 It is intended
that designers could thoroughly consider the conditions
of different phases of the life cycle of molds during the
initial design stage and effectively integrate relevant
processes during the development process of plastic
products, in order that companies can provide more
innovative products, and thus, obtain more benefits.
Materials and methods
Research framework
Through the literature review, we can clarify our under-
standing of the analysis applications of PSSs, the sus-
tainable development model, and plastic mold design;
through in-depth interviews with experts, this study
obtains the correlation factors between the PSS, sus-
tainable design, and the plastic mold development
model, as the basis for plastic mold sustainable design.
This study conducts concurrent assessments through
the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method to
obtain the overall impact factors of the reordering and
mold development process, in order to develop a plastic
mold design and construct the models. The framework
of this study is described in Figure 2.
Participants
This study invites plastic mold experts to compare the
different product development stages of product design
and plastic mold design and collects their advice and
Huang et al.
Table 1. The experts’ backgrounds.
No. Name of corporation
1 Plastic Industry Development Center
2 Yuxin Co., Ltd.
3 HAR LIN PRECISION MACHINERY CO., LTD.
4 Jabil Packaging Solutions is a division of Nypro, Inc.
5 Living Fountain Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
6 CoreTech System Co., Ltd.
Figure 2. Research framework.
comments regarding sustainable design and develop-
ment (Table 1).
Research tool
The questionnaires of the semi-structural interviews in this
study investigate content, including product servitization,
the strategies of sustainable design and development, and
the factors of plastic mold life cycle. The main research is
divided into two stages: (a) the sustainable design of prod-
uct servitization and (b) the green design principles and
related strategy of plastic mold design.
In order to probe into current plastic mold and sus-
tainable design and development, this study adopts in-
depth interviews through face-to-face communication
regarding the subjects’ knowledge and competences
required for work, duties, and conditions and extensively
collects the required data. This study interviews experts
in the field and invites them to provide suggestions to
generalize the evaluation indices of plastic mold design
and the development factors in a PSS and then modifies
the research direction to establish questionnaire content.
3
Name Title Years
Mr Chen Assistant researcher 5
Mr Tai Factory chief 10
Mr Huang General manager 10
Mr Lin Section manager 8
Mr Zhu R&D department assistant manager 8
Mr Lee Engineer 12
Results and discussion
Key factors and weight factors of PSS mold
sustainable design and development
Through the literature review and expert question-
naire interviews, the AHP of plastic mold sustainable
design and development in a PSS is constructed, as
follows:
1. Connection between the PSS and the sustain-
able design strategy; the extracted service fac-
tors are (a) green supply chain management,
(b) evaluation of the phases from product life
cycle to service, (c) product design service and
concern for total recycling and remanufactur-
ing, (d) environmental laws, and (e) mainte-
nance service and increased product life. These
factors are associated with the operation of
plastic mold sustainable design and develop-
ment in a PSS; thus, this study treats them as
the highest level.
2. Regarding the connection between the plastic
mold production cycle and sustainable design
and development, experts suggest that in the
development of plastic products, integrating
environmental concerns in the phases of pro-
duction will allow us to recognize possible envi-
ronmental issues, and the impact of overall
product life cycle on the environment.
According to the literature review, the produc-
tion cycle of plastic mold development includes
five phases: ‘‘material selection,’’‘‘design integra-
tion,’’‘‘manufacturing process,’’‘‘quality con-
trol,’’ and ‘‘recycling and reuse.’’ This study
treats these as the second highest goal level.
This study calculates the characteristics of the previ-
ous levels of Expert Choice 2000 of AHP in order to
construct evaluation factors for decision-making and
then compares the evaluation levels and factors to mea-
sure the importance of the evaluation factors of plastic
mold sustainable design and development in a PSS. The
connection between the AHP of the evaluation and the
criteria is shown in Figure 3.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 3. The AHP construct of plastic mold sustainable
design and development in products service system.
Analytical results of key factors and weight factors
The AHP was developed by Professor TL Saaty9 from
the University of Pittsburgh in 1971, which was mainly
applied to decision-making issues under uncertain con-
ditions with many assessment principles. The objective
of AHP is to systemize complicated issues by breaking
them down into different levels, judging them through
quantification, determining their logic, and comprehen-
sively assessing them in order to provide sufficient
information for decision-makers to choose an appro-
priate proposal, while reducing the risk of wrong deci-
sions.10,11 Hence, this study utilizes AHP for decision-
making. The procedures and relevant steps of AHP can
be classified into the following eight steps.
Identify the issue of decision-making. The issue to be decided
should be identified before a definition is given to it,
which is helpful to gain a clear understanding of the pur-
pose of the decision. Especially, when applying AHP to
determine the hierarchy of assessment elements, the
direction of the issue should be fully understood.
List all assessment elements. When listing all assessment
elements, the opinions of experts and decision-makers
should be gathered first (list all assessment elements with
caution) and then consider all opinions of the assess-
ment elements, as based on expertise and practical expe-
rience. The order and relationships of decision-making
factors are not required; thus, group brainstorming or
the Delphi method can be used to gather the opinions of
experts and decision-makers.
Establish hierarchy. The hierarchy of all assessment ele-
ments is determined in accordance with their relations
with each other and their independence. While the num-
ber of layers depends on the complexity of the issue, at
each layer, the number of elements should be not more
than seven, in order to avoid contradiction when asses-
sing them and to avoid negative effect on the assess-
ment result. The elements of the different layers should
be independent. Regarding the hierarchy structure,
from the overall target to sub-targets, and to the result
of decision-making, a poly-hierarchy is formed. The
number of layers depends on the complexity of the deci-
sion to be made and the degree of analysis required.
The classification of hierarchy involves a complete hier-
archy and an incomplete hierarchy. In a complete hier-
archy, the elements of different layers are connected
with each other, while an analytical hierarchy structure,
such as education equality, is a complete hierarchy. In
an incomplete hierarchy, the elements of different layers
are not necessarily connected with each other. The
structure of a hierarchy is established by repeatedly
revising and summarizing the opinions from group dis-
cussions, relevant literature, and relevant experts. The
principles for establishing the hierarchy structure can
be summarized as follows:
1. The first layer is the target of decision-making
or evaluation.
2. Elements with similar importance should be
placed in the same layer.
3. The number of elements in the same layer
should not be too numerous, and the elements
should be independent.
4. The bottom layer is the action plan of decision-
making or the evaluation target.
Pairwise comparison assessment. After the establishment
of the hierarchy structure, the relative importance of dif-
ferent assessment elements in the same layer is assessed
in accordance with the outcomes of the questionnaires
or assessment results of experts. The AHP evaluation
method takes the elements at the last layer as the basis
and compares the importance or influence of two ran-
domly chosen elements in the same layer on the elements
at the last layer. This procedure helps decision-makers
reduce their thinking burdens and demonstrate the rela-
tiveness of the decision factors in a clearer manner.
In pairwise comparison, in general, opinions from
scholars and experts are gathered and repeatedly
Huang et al.
Table 2. Pairwise comparison matrix.12
Assessment elements A B C tor in AHP) can be computed by standardizing the
A 1 2 3
B 1/2 1 5
C 1/3 1/5 1 accurate results can be calculated by a computer. The
discussed to reach consensus; if there are different opi-
nions and consensus cannot be reached, the geometric
mean method is used to conclude a result. This study
uses questionnaires to obtain experts’ opinions and con-
cludes a result using the geometric mean method.
Create a pairwise comparison matrix. To create a pairwise
comparison matrix, the assessment elements in each
layer are regarded as the basis, and pairwise compari-
son is conducted between them and the assessment ele-
ments in the next layer. In this way, the assessment
values of pairwise comparison are formed. Where C (n,
2) = n (n 2 1)/2 are assessment values, that are the ele-
ment values in the upper right of the main diagonal as
represented in the pairwise comparison matrix (Table
2). Insert the reciprocals of the element values, which
are in the upper right in the lower left of the main diag-
onal, and set the element values on the main diagonal
as one, in order to complete pairwise comparison
matrix A.
aij = wi/wj. Here, w1, w2,., wn represent the rela-
tive weights of the elements in a layer to an element in
the last layer. The following two characteristics can be
seen in the matrix:
1. The pairwise comparison matrix of AHP is a
positive transpose matrix.
2. If all experts’ judgments are very perfect and
precise, the matrix is a consistency matrix. In
other words, all comparison values meet the
mathematics transitive law.
Calculate the priority vectors and maximized eigenvalues of all
comparison matrixes. Since A is a positive reciprocal
matrix, AW = nW, A = [aij]n 3 n, W = (w1,., wn)T.
In accordance with the matrix theory, w is an eigenvec-
tor of consistency matrix A; while in AHP, it is called a
priority vector, which represents the relative weights of
all elements, and its eigenvalue is n. If the pairwise
comparison matrix is a consistency matrix, and ajj = l,
there will be only one eigenvalue n, while the remaining
eigenvalues are zero; thus, the maximum eigenvalue is
n. During the subjective comparison process, there will
be few errors. Although the eigenvalue will undergo the
minimum change accordingly, providing aij = l and
matrix A is a consistency matrix, its maximized eigen-
value will remain close to n. Regarding how many
errors are allowed before it will affect the accuracy of
the result, the consistency index (CI) and consistency
5
ratio (CR) should be used for verification. The eigen-
vector of maximized eigenvalue W (i.e. the priority vec-
limit matrix of matrix A’s K power and adding the hor-
izontal line. Since the calculation process is difficult,
accurate maximized eigenvalue lmax can also be calcu-
lated by a computer. However, if the requirement of
accuracy is not high, its approximate value can be cal-
culated through the following manner.
First, calculate W# through W# = AW (w# is the
result of the standardization of w). Second, divide every
element of W# by its corresponding element of W.
Finally, compute the arithmetic mean of the value,
which was obtained in step 2, and the approximate
lmax can be obtained.
Calculate CI and CR. When conducting pairwise assess-
ment comparison, experts may not reach an agreement
during their assessment if the indices affect analysis
accuracy. Therefore, the magnitude of the error must
be checked to determine whether it is within the toler-
able margin of error, in order to avoid affecting the pri-
ority results of decision-making. Saaty transformed the
difference between the maximized eigenvalue lmax and
n into a CI to assess the level of consistency, which
works as the reference regarding whether or not to
accept this comparison matrix. Its mathematic forma-
tion is CI = (lmax)/(n 2 1).
Calculate the total priority vector of the entire hierarchy. If
the consistency of the entire hierarchy is acceptable, in
the final AHP step, the relative weights of the elements
in each layer should be integrated to compute the total
priority vector for the entire hierarchy. The computed
vector represents all priority decision-making proposals
relative to the decision-making target.
Through the obtained questionnaires, this study
acquires the pairwise comparison matrix of green mate-
rials in energy saving by one key factor in the analysis
of Expert Choice 2000. Through Excel, this study cal-
culates the standardized values in order to obtain prior-
ity vectors. Maximum eigenvalue lmax is following the
formula for the priority vector and maximum eigenva-
lue of the comparison matrix
2 3
1 a12 . . . a1n
6 a112 1 . . . a2n 7
6 7
Pairwise comparison matrix A = 6 . .. .. 7
4 .. . ... . 5
1
a1n
1
a2n ... 1
2 3
W1
6 W2 7
6 7
Priority vector W = 6 .. 7
4 . 5
Wn
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Random index of n-order positive reciprocal matrix.9

Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49

RI: random index.

Table 4. Pairwise comparison matrix of PSS plastic mold sustainable design and development.

Dimensions Service Design Material Manufacturing Quality control Reuse and

support integration selection process measure recycle
integration

Service support 1 1.644300 2.614800 2.726500 2.953700 3.544400

Design integration 0.608162 1 1.590200 1.658100 1.796300 2.155600
Material selection 0.382438 0.628852 1 1.042700 1.129600 1.200000
Manufacturing process integration 0.366771 0.603100 0.959049 1 1.083300 1.355600
Quality control measure 0.338558 0.556700 0.885269 0.923105 1 1.253300
Reuse and recycle 0.282135 0.463908 0.833333 0.737681 0.797894 1
Vertical summation 2.978064 4.896859 7.882651 8.088086 8.760794 10.508900

Table 5. Priority vector W of PSS plastic mold sustainable design and development.

Dimensions Service Design Material Manufacturing Quality Reuse Horizontal Horizontal

support integration selection process control and summation summation
integration measure recycle average

Service support 0.335789 0.335787 0.331716 0.337101 0.337150 0.337276 2.014818 0.335803
Design integration 0.204214 0.204213 0.201734 0.205005 0.205039 0.205121 1.225326 0.204221
Material selection 0.128418 0.128419 0.126861 0.128918 0.128938 0.114189 0.755744 0.125957
Manufacturing 0.123157 0.123161 0.121666 0.123639 0.123653 0.128995 0.744271 0.124045
process integration
Quality control 0.113684 0.113685 0.112306 0.114131 0.114145 0.119261 0.687212 0.114535
measure
Reuse and recycle 0.094738 0.094736 0.105717 0.091206 0.091075 0.095157 0.572630 0.095438

2 3
1 a12 . . . a1n on rankings for decision-making. Saaty transformed
6 1 7 the difference between maximum eigenvalue lmax and
6 1 . . . a2n 7
6 a12 7 n into a CI to measure the degree of consistency for the
0 6 7
New vector W = A 3 W = 6 . .. .. 7 acceptance of the comparison matrix
6 .. . ... . 7
6 7
4 1 1 5
... 1 l max  n
a1n a2n Formula CI =
2 3 2 n1
0 3
W1 W1
6 W 7 6 W0 7 lmax is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the number
6 27 6 27 of the hierarchical factor.
36 7 6 7
6 .. 7 = 6 .. 7
4 . 5 4 . 5 In addition, the CI of the random positive reciprocal
matrix is called random index (RI); Saaty obtained the
Wn W 0n
corresponding RIs of the number of orders (Table 3),
Calculation of the maximum eigenvalue as well as the RI of the n-order positive reciprocal
matrix.
 0  According to the previous CI and RI, we can acquire
1 W1 W 02 W 03 W1
l max = + + +  + n the CR of the comparison matrix, CR = CI/RI. Saaty
n W1 W2 W3 Wn
suggested that CR  0.1 is reasonable, an acceptable
In pairwise comparison, when experts lack consis- error, and consistency of the matrix is satisfied. If it is
tent evaluation indices, it might influence the precision beyond the level, Saaty suggested re-modifying the eva-
of analysis. Therefore, this study determines whether luation to improve the CR. The following is the result
the errors are acceptable in order to avoid an impact of 19 valid questionnaires after software calculation. By
Huang et al. 7

Table 6. Priority vector W# of PSS plastic mold sustainable design and development.

Dimensions Service Design Material Manufacturing Quality Reuse and Horizontal

support integration selection process control recycle summation
integration measure

Service support 0.335803 0.335800 0.329353 0.338209 0.338303 0.338271 2.015740

Design integration 0.204222 0.204221 0.200297 0.205679 0.205740 0.205727 1.225887
Material selection 0.128424 0.128425 0.125957 0.129342 0.129379 0.114526 0.756053
Manufacturing 0.123163 0.123166 0.120799 0.124045 0.124076 0.129376 0.744625
process integration
Quality control measure 0.113689 0.113690 0.111506 0.114507 0.114535 0.119613 0.687540
Reuse and recycle 0.094742 0.094740 0.104964 0.091506 0.091387 0.095438 0.572777

Table 7. Maximum eigenvalue in PSS plastic mold sustainable design and development.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation average (Y) Z = (X)/(Y)

Service support 2.015740 0.335803 6.002748

Design integration 1.225887 0.204221 6.002748
Material selection 0.756053 0.125957 6.002455
Manufacturing process integration 0.744625 0.124045 6.002854
Quality control measure 0.687540 0.114535 6.002858
Reuse and recycle 0.572777 0.095438 6.001543
Total 36.015205

Table 8. Pairwise comparison matrix of service support.

Dimensions Green supply Service life Recycling system Environmental Maintenance

chain cycle and remanufacture regulations services
management evaluation

Green supply chain management 1 1.291500 1.179900 1.155400 2.045900

Service life cycle evaluation 0.774293 1 1.523800 1.492200 2.642200
Recycling system and remanufacture 0.847529 0.656254 1 1.021200 1.733900
Environmental regulations 0.865501 0.670151 0.979240 1 1.770600
Maintenance services 0.488782 0.378472 0.576735 0.564780 1
Vertical summation 3.976106 3.996378 5.259675 5.233580 9.192600

calculation of Expert Choice, and upon plastic mold
sustainable design and development in a PSS, as well as
analysis of the ultimate goal (Level I), this study obtains
a pairwise comparison matrix (Table 4).
Regarding the values obtained in Table 4, this study
calculates the standardized values through Microsoft
Excel to acquire priority vector W#, as shown in Table 5,
where the mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
According to the figures obtained in Table 4, this
study calculates the standardized figures through Excel.
Upon plastic mold sustainable design and development
in the PSS of Table 5 and priority vector W#, we
acquire the horizontal sums and means, and thus,
determine the evaluation ranking of the plastic mold
sustainable design and development in a PSS. This
study multiplies the mean of priority vector W# of plas-
tic mold sustainable design and development in the
PSS of Table 5 by the corresponding goal values of the
pairwise comparison matrix of plastic mold sustainable
design and development in the PSS of Table 4, which
results in the horizontal sums and priority vector W# of
Table 6.
This study divides the horizontal sums of priority
vector W# of plastic mold sustainable design and devel-
opment in the PSS of Table 6 by the mean of priority
vector W# of plastic mold sustainable design and devel-
opment in PSS in Table 5 and obtains the maximum
eigenvalue (lmax) of plastic mold sustainable design
and development in the PSS of Table 7.
By Table 7, we acquire the maximum eigenvalues
lmax = 1/6(6.002748 + 6.002748 + 6.002455
+ 6.002854 + 6.002858 + 6.001543) = 6.002534. CI
is CI = (lmax 2 n)/(n 2 1) = (6.002534 2 6)/(6 2 1) =
0.000507. CR of plastic mold sustainable design and
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 9. Priority vector W of service support.

Dimensions Green supply Service life Recycling Environmental Maintenance Horizontal Horizontal
chain cycle system and regulations services summation summation
management evaluation remanufacture average

Green supply chain 0.251502 0.323168 0.224329 0.220767 0.222559 1.242326 0.248465
management
Service life cycle 0.194737 0.250227 0.289714 0.285120 0.287427 1.307224 0.261445
evaluation
Recycling system and 0.213156 0.164212 0.190126 0.195125 0.188619 0.951237 0.190247
remanufacture
Environmental 0.217676 0.167690 0.186179 0.191074 0.192611 0.955229 0.191046
regulations
Maintenance services 0.122930 0.094704 0.109652 0.107915 0.108783 0.543984 0.108797

Table 10. Priority vector W# of service support.

Dimensions Green supply Service life Recycling system Environmental Maintenance Horizontal
chain cycle and remanufacture regulations services summation
management evaluation

Green supply chain management 0.248465 0.337656 0.224473 0.220734 0.222587 1.253916
Service life cycle evaluation 0.192385 0.261445 0.289899 0.285079 0.287463 1.316270
Recycling system and 0.210581 0.171574 0.190247 0.195096 0.188643 0.956142
remanufacture
Environmental regulations 0.215047 0.175208 0.186298 0.191046 0.192636 0.960234
Maintenance services 0.121445 0.098950 0.109722 0.107899 0.108797 0.546813

Table 11. Maximum eigenvalue in service support.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation average (Y) Z = (X)/(Y)

Green supply chain management 1.253916 0.248465 5.046647

Service life cycle evaluation 1.316270 0.261445 5.034601
Recycling system and remanufacture 0.956142 0.190247 5.025780
Environmental regulations 0.960234 0.191046 5.026195
Maintenance services 0.546813 0.108797 5.026005
Total 26.169420

development in PSS and evaluation: when n = 6, the
RIs are RI = 1.25, CR = CI/RI = 0.000507/
1.25 = 0.000405. CI  0.1, CR  0.1, which meets the
AHP suggestion of Saaty and satisfies matrix
consistency.
Dimensions analysis of material selection
Regarding the values obtained in Table 8, this study
calculates the standardized values by Microsoft Excel
to acquire priority vector W# in Table 9, where the
mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
According to the figures obtained in Table 8, this
study calculates the standardized figures through Excel.
Upon the service support of Table 9 and priority vector
W#, we acquire the horizontal sums and means, and
thus, determine the ranking of the evaluation of plastic
mold sustainable design and development in a PSS. This
study multiplies the mean of priority vector W# of plastic
mold sustainable design and development in the PSS of
Table 9 by the corresponding goal values of the pairwise
comparison matrix of plastic mold sustainable design and
development in the PSS of Table 8, which results in the
horizontal sums and priority vector W# of Table 10.
This study divides the horizontal sums of priority
vector W# of service support of Table 10 by the mean
of priority vector W# of plastic mold sustainable design
and development in PSS in Table 9 and obtains the
maximum eigenvalue (lmax) of plastic mold sustain-
able design and development in the PSS of Table 11.
By Table 11, we acquire the maximum eigenvalues
lmax = 1/5(5.046647 + 5.034601 + 5.025780
+ 5.026195 + 5.026005) = 5.031846. CI is CI =
(lmax 2 n)/(n 2 1) = 5.031846 2 5)/(5 2 1) = 0.007961.
Huang et al. 9

Table 12. Pairwise comparison matrix of design integration.

Dimensions Module Easy to Enhance the Disassembly Multi-slot

replacement disassembly structure module-structure molds
of connecting and strength simplification design
design replacement

Module replacement of connecting design 1 1.394700 1.269500 1.797200 2.436800

Easy to disassembly and replacement 0.717000 1 1.098700 2.506600 1.747100
Enhance the structure strength 0.787712 0.910167 1 2.281400 1.919500
Disassembly module-structure simplification 0.556421 0.398947 0.438327 1 4.379300
Multi-slot molds design 0.410374 0.572377 0.520969 0.228347 1
Vertical summation 3.471507 4.276190 4.327496 7.813547 11.482700

Table 13. Priority vector W of design integration.

Dimensions Module Easy to Enhance the Disassembly Multi-slot Horizontal Horizontal

replacement disassembly structure module- molds summation summation
of connecting and strength structure design average
design replacement simplification

Module replacement of 0.288059 0.326155 0.293357 0.230011 0.212215 1.349796 0.269959

connecting design
Easy to disassembly 0.206539 0.233853 0.253888 0.320802 0.152151 1.167232 0.233446
and replacement
Enhance the 0.226908 0.212845 0.231080 0.291980 0.167165 1.129978 0.225996
structure strength
Disassembly 0.160282 0.093295 0.101289 0.127983 0.381382 0.864231 0.172846
module-structure
simplification
Multi-slot molds design 0.118212 0.133852 0.120386 0.029224 0.087088 0.488762 0.097752

Table 14. Priority vector W# of design integration.

Dimensions Module Easy to Enhance the Disassembly Multi-slot Horizontal

replacement disassembly structure module- molds summation
of connecting and strength structure design
design replacement simplification

Module replacement of 0.269959 0.325588 0.286901 0.310639 0.238203 1.431291

connecting design
Easy to disassembly and replacement 0.193561 0.233446 0.248301 0.433256 0.170783 1.279348
Enhance the structure strength 0.212650 0.212475 0.225996 0.394331 0.187636 1.233088
Disassembly module-structure 0.150211 0.093133 0.099060 0.172846 0.428087 0.943337
simplification
Multi-slot molds design 0.110784 0.133619 0.117737 0.039469 0.097752 0.499362

CR of plastic mold sustainable design and development
in PSS and evaluation: when n = 5, the RIs are
RI = 1.11, CR = CI/RI = 0.007961/1.11 = 0.007172.
CI  0.1, CR  0.1, which meets the AHP suggestion
of Saaty and satisfies matrix consistency.
Dimensions analysis of service support
Regarding the values obtained in Table 12, this study
calculates the standardized values by Microsoft Excel
to acquire priority vector W# in Table 13, where the
mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
According to the figures obtained in Table 12, this
study calculates the standardized figures through Excel.
Upon design integration of Table 13 and priority vec-
tor W#, we acquire the horizontal sums and means, and
thus, determine the ranking of the evaluation of plastic
mold sustainable design and development in a PSS.
This study multiplies the mean of priority vector W# of
plastic mold sustainable design and development in the
PSS of Table 13 by the corresponding goal values of
the pairwise comparison matrix of plastic mold sustain-
able design and development in the PSS of Table 12,
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 15. Maximum eigenvalue in design integration.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation average (Y) Z = (X)/(Y)

Module replacement of connecting design 1.431291 0.269959 5.301876

Easy to disassembly and replacement 1.279348 0.233446 5.480265
Enhance the structure strength 1.233088 0.225996 5.456248
Disassembly module-structure simplification 0.943337 0.172846 5.457666
Multi-slot molds design 0.499362 0.097752 5.108434
Total 25.494910

Table 16. Pairwise comparison matrix of material selection.

Dimensions Material Biodegradable Lead-free and Simplify and compatible Lightweight

features materials halogen-free material materials

Material features 1 2.182400 1.554100 1.182400 1.193500

Biodegradable Materials 0.458211 1 1.404300 1.845700 2.604800
Lead-free and halogen-free material 0.643459 0.712099 1 1.314300 1.854800
Simplify and compatible materials 0.845737 0.541800 0.760861 1 1.411300
Lightweight 0.837872 0.383907 0.539142 0.708567 1
Vertical summation 3.785280 4.820205 5.258403 6.050967 8.064400

Table 17. Priority vector W of material selection.

Dimensions Material Biodegradable Lead-free and Simplify and Lightweight Horizontal Horizontal
features materials halogen-free compatible summation summation
material materials average

Material features 0.264181 0.452761 0.295546 0.195407 0.147996 1.355891 0.271178

Biodegradable materials 0.121051 0.207460 0.267058 0.305026 0.323000 1.223595 0.244719
Lead-free and halogen- 0.169990 0.147732 0.190172 0.217205 0.229999 0.955097 0.191019
free material
Simplify and compatible 0.223428 0.112402 0.144694 0.165263 0.175004 0.820791 0.164158
materials
Lightweight 0.221350 0.079645 0.102530 0.117100 0.124002 0.644626 0.128925

which results in the horizontal sums and priority vector
W# of Table 14.
This study divides the horizontal sums of priority
vector W# of design integration of Table 14 by the
mean of priority vector W# of plastic mold sustain-
able design and development in PSS in Table 13 and
obtains the maximum eigenvalue (lmax) of plastic
mold sustainable design and development in the PSS
of Table 15.
By Table 15, we acquire the maximum eigen-
values lmax = 1/5(5.301876 + 5.480265 + 5.456248
+ 5.457666 + 5.108434) = 5.360898. CI is CI =
(lmax 2 n)/(n 2 1) = (5.360898 2 5)/(5 2 1) = 0.090224.
CR of plastic mold sustainable design and development
in PSS and evaluation: when n = 5, the RIs are
RI = 1.11, CR = CI/RI = 0.090224/1.11 = 0.081283.
CI  0.1, CR  0.1, which meets the AHP suggestion
of Saaty and satisfies matrix consistency.
Dimensions analysis of material selection
Regarding the values obtained in Table 16, this study
calculates the standardized values by Microsoft Excel
to acquire priority vector W# in Table 17, where the
mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
According to the figures obtained in Table 16, this
study calculates the standardized figures through Excel.
Upon material selection of Table 17 and priority vector
W#, we acquire the horizontal sums and means, and
thus, determine the ranking of the evaluation of plastic
mold sustainable design and development in a PSS.
This study multiplies the mean of priority vector W# of
plastic mold sustainable design and development in the
PSS of Table 17 by the corresponding goal values of
the pairwise comparison matrix of plastic mold sustain-
able design and development in the PSS of Table 16,
which results in the horizontal sums and priority vector
W# of Table 18.
Huang et al. 11

Table 18. Priority vector W# of material selection.

Dimensions Material Biodegradable Lead-free and Simplify and Lightweight Horizontal

features materials halogen-free compatible summation
material materials

Material features 0.271178 0.534075 0.296863 0.194101 0.153872 1.450089

Biodegradable materials 0.124257 0.244719 0.268249 0.302987 0.335825 1.276036
Lead-free and halogen-free material 0.174492 0.174264 0.191019 0.215753 0.239131 0.994659
Simplify and compatible materials 0.229346 0.132589 0.145339 0.164158 0.181952 0.853384
Lightweight 0.227213 0.093949 0.102987 0.116317 0.128925 0.669391

Table 19. Maximum eigenvalue in material selection.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation average (Y) Z = (X)/(Y)

Material features 1.450089 0.271178 5.347366

Biodegradable materials 1.276036 0.244719 5.214291
Lead-free and halogen-free material 0.994659 0.191019 5.207110
Simplify and compatible materials 0.853384 0.164158 5.198547
Lightweight 0.669391 0.128925 5.192082
Total 26.635696

Table 20. Pairwise comparison matrix of manufacturing process.

Dimensions Using IT efficient Reduce the Reduce the Using virtual Environmentally Reduce the
manufacture production number technology surface treatment adhesive
waste of electrical analysis forming
discharge technique
machining

Using IT efficient manufacture 1 2.242600 3.542100 1.943600 4.258400 6.112900

Reduce the production waste 0.445911 1 1.579400 1.153800 1.898900 2.725800
Reduce the number of electrical 0.282318 0.633152 1 1.822400 1.202200 1.725800
discharge machining
Using virtual technology analysis 0.514509 0.866701 0.548727 1 2.191000 3.145200
Environmentally 0.234830 0.526621 0.831808 0.456413 1 1.435500
surface treatment
Reduce the adhesive 0.163588 0.366865 0.579441 0.317945 0.696621 1
forming technique
Vertical summation 2.641157 5.635939 8.081477 6.694157 11.247121 16.145200

This study divides the horizontal sums of priority Dimensions analysis of manufacturing process
vector W# of material selection of Table 18 by the mean (Level II)
of priority vector W# of plastic mold sustainable design
Regarding the values obtained in Table 20, this study
and development in PSS in Table 17 and obtains the
calculates the standardized values by Microsoft Excel
maximum eigenvalue (lmax) of plastic mold sustain-
to acquire priority vector W# in Table 21, where the
able design and development in the PSS of Table 19.
mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
By Table 19, we acquire the maximum eigenvalues
According to the figures obtained in Table 20, this
lmax = 1/5(5.347366 + 5.214291 + 5.207110
study calculates the standardized figures through Excel.
+ 5.198547 + 5.192082) = 5.231879. CI is CI =
Upon the manufacturing process of Table 21 and prior-
(lmax 2 n)/(n 2 1) = (5.231879 2 5)/
ity vector W#, we acquire the horizontal sums and
(5 2 1) = 0.057970. CR of material selection and eva-
means, and thus, determine the ranking of the evalua-
luation: when n = 5, the RIs are RI = 1.11, CR = CI/
tion of manufacturing process. This study multiplies
RI = 0.057970/1.11 = 0.052225. CI  0.1, CR  0.1,
the mean of priority vector W# of the manufacturing
which meets the AHP suggestion of Saaty and satisfies
process of Table 21 by the corresponding goal values of
matrix consistency.
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 21. Priority vector W of manufacturing process.

Dimensions Using IT Reduce the Reduce the Using Environmentally Reduce the Horizontal Horizontal
efficient production number of virtual surface adhesive summation summation
manufacture waste electrical technology treatment forming average
discharge analysis technique
machining

Using IT efficient 0.378622 0.397911 0.438299 0.290343 0.378621 0.378620 2.262416 0.377069
manufacture
Reduce the 0.168832 0.177433 0.195435 0.172359 0.168834 0.168830 1.051723 0.175287
production waste
Reduce the 0.106892 0.112342 0.123740 0.272237 0.106890 0.106892 0.828993 0.138165
number of
electrical
discharge
machining
Using virtual 0.194804 0.153781 0.067899 0.149384 0.194805 0.194807 0.955482 0.159247
technology analysis
Environmentally 0.088912 0.093440 0.102928 0.068181 0.088912 0.088912 0.531284 0.088547
surface treatment
Reduce the 0.061938 0.065094 0.071700 0.047496 0.061938 0.061938 0.370103 0.061684
adhesive
forming technique

Table 22. Priority vector W# of manufacturing process.

Dimensions Using IT Reduce the Reduce the Using virtual Environmentally Reduce the Horizontal
efficient production number of technology surface adhesive summation
manufacture waste electrical analysis treatment forming
discharge technique
machining

Using IT efficient 0.377069 0.393099 0.489396 0.309512 0.377070 0.377068 2.323214

manufacture
Reduce the 0.168139 0.175287 0.218219 0.183739 0.168142 0.168138 1.081665
production waste
Reduce the number of 0.106454 0.110983 0.138165 0.290212 0.106452 0.106454 0.858720
electrical
discharge machining
Using virtual 0.194006 0.151922 0.075815 0.159247 0.194007 0.194008 0.969005
technology analysis
Environmentally 0.088547 0.092310 0.114927 0.072682 0.088547 0.088547 0.545561
surface treatment
Reduce the adhesive 0.061684 0.064307 0.080059 0.050632 0.061684 0.061684 0.380049
forming technique

Table 23. Maximum eigenvalue in manufacturing process.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation Z = (X)/(Y)

average (Y)

Using IT efficient manufacture 2.323214 0.377069 6.161239

Reduce the production waste 1.081665 0.175287 6.170815
Reduce the number of electrical discharge machining 0.858720 0.138165 6.215153
Using virtual technology analysis 0.969005 0.159247 6.084919
Environmentally surface treatment 0.545561 0.088547 6.161241
Reduce the adhesive forming technique 0.380049 0.061684 6.161237
Total 36.954604
Huang et al. 13

Table 24. Pairwise comparison matrix of quality control.

Dimensions Database Incoming Process Precision Warehouse

establishing quality control measurement management
control

Database establishing 1 2.114300 1.170000 1.218100 5.193000

Incoming quality control 0.472970 1 1.807100 1.735700 2.456100
Process control 0.854701 0.553373 1 1.041200 4.438600
Precision measurement 0.820951 0.576136 0.960430 1 4.263200
Warehouse management 0.192567 0.407150 0.225296 0.234566 1
Vertical summation 3.341188 4.650959 5.162827 5.229566 17.350900

Table 25. Priority vector W of quality control.

Dimensions Database Incoming Process Precision Warehouse Horizontal Horizontal

establishing quality control measurement management summation summation
control average

Database establishing 0.299295 0.454594 0.226620 0.232926 0.299293 1.512728 0.302546

Incoming quality control 0.141557 0.215009 0.350021 0.331901 0.141555 1.180044 0.236009
Process control 0.255807 0.118980 0.193692 0.199099 0.255814 1.023393 0.204679
Precision measurement 0.245706 0.123875 0.186028 0.191220 0.245705 0.992534 0.198507
Warehouse management 0.057634 0.087541 0.043638 0.044854 0.057634 0.291301 0.058260

Table 26. Priority vector W# of quality control.

Dimensions Database Incoming Process Precision Warehouse Horizontal

establishing quality control measurement management summation
control

Database establishing 0.302546 0.498994 0.239474 0.241801 0.302545 1.585359

Incoming quality control 0.143095 0.236009 0.369875 0.344548 0.143093 1.236620
Process control 0.258586 0.130601 0.204679 0.206685 0.258594 1.059144
Precision measurement 0.248375 0.135973 0.196579 0.198507 0.248375 1.027810
Warehouse management 0.058260 0.096091 0.046113 0.046563 0.058260 0.305288

the pairwise comparison matrix of manufacturing pro-
cess of Table 20, which results in the horizontal sums
and priority vector W# of Table 22.
This study divides the horizontal sums of priority
vector W# of manufacturing process of Table 22 by the
mean of priority vector W# of the manufacturing pro-
cess in Table 21 and obtains the maximum eigenvalue
(lmax) of the manufacturing process of Table 23.
By Table 23, we acquire the maximum eigenvalues
lmax = 1/6(6.161239 + 6.170815 + 6.215153
+ 6.084919 + 6.161241 + 6.161237) = 6.159101. CI
is CI = (lmax 2 n)/(n 2 1) = (6.159101 2 6)/(6 2 1) =
0.03182. CR of manufacturing process and evaluation:
when n = 6, the RIs are RI = 1.25, CR = CI/
RI = 0.03182/1.25 = 0.025456. CI  0.1, CR  0.1,
which meets the AHP suggestion of Saaty and satisfies
matrix consistency.
Dimensions analysis of quality control (Level II)
Regarding the values obtained in Table 24, this study
calculates the standardized values by Microsoft Excel
to acquire priority vector W# in Table 25, where the
mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
According to the figures obtained in Table 24, this
study calculates the standardized figures through
Excel. Upon quality control of Table 25 and priority
vector W#, we acquire the horizontal sums and
means, and thus, determine the ranking of the eva-
luation of quality control. This study multiplies the
mean of priority vector W# of quality control of
Table 25 by the corresponding goal values of the
pairwise comparison matrix of quality control of
Table 24, which results in the horizontal sums and
priority vector W# of Table 26.
14 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 27. Maximum eigenvalue in quality control.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation average (Y) Z = (X)/(Y)

Database establishing 1.585359 0.302546 5.240069

Incoming quality control 1.236620 0.236009 5.239717
Process control 1.059144 0.204679 5.174673
Precision measurement 1.027810 0.198507 5.177703
Warehouse management 0.305288 0.058260 5.240069
Total 26.033420

Table 28. Priority vector W of recycling and reusing.

Dimensions Green mark Recycling Natural resources Recycling resource

system establishing recovery management

Green mark 1 3.696100 2.902000 2.205900

Recycling system establishing 0.270555 1 1.273600 1.675600
Natural resources recovery 0.344590 0.785176 1 1.315600
Recycling resource management 0.453330 0.596801 0.760109 1
Vertical summation 2.068475 6.078077 5.935709 6.197100

Table 29. Priority Vector W# of recycling and reusing.

Dimensions Green mark Recycling Natural Recycling Horizontal Horizontal

system resources resource summation summation
establishing recovery management average

Green mark 0.483448 0.608104 0.488905 0.355957 1.936414 0.484103

Recycling system establishing 0.130799 0.164526 0.214566 0.270385 0.780275 0.195069
Natural resources recovery 0.166591 0.129182 0.168472 0.212293 0.676538 0.169134
Recycling resource management 0.219161 0.098189 0.128057 0.161366 0.606773 0.151693

Table 30. Priority vector W# of recycling and reusing.

Dimensions Green mark Recycling Natural Recycling Horizontal

system resources resource summation
establishing recovery management

Green mark 0.484103 0.720994 0.490828 0.334620 2.030546

Recycling system establishing 0.130977 0.195069 0.215410 0.254177 0.795633
Natural resources recovery 0.166817 0.153163 0.169134 0.199568 0.688683
Recycling resource management 0.219458 0.116417 0.128561 0.151693 0.616130

This study divides the horizontal sums of priority
vector W# of quality control of Table 26 by the mean of
priority vector W# of quality control in Table 25 and
obtains the maximum eigenvalue (lmax) of quality con-
trol of Table 27.
By Table 27, we acquire the maximum eigenvalues
lmax=1/5(5.240069 + 5.239717 + 5.174673 + 5.177703
+ 5.240069) = 5.214446. CI is CI = (lmax 2 n)/
(n 2 1) = (5.214446 2 5)/(5 2 1) = 0.053612. CR of qual-
ity control and evaluation: when n = 5, the RIs are
RI = 1.11, CR = CI/RI = 0.053612/1.11 = 0.048299.
CI  0.1, CR  0.1, which meets the AHP suggestion of
Saaty and satisfies matrix consistency.
Dimensions analysis of recycling and reuse (Level II)
Regarding the values obtained in Table 28, this study
calculates the standardized values by Microsoft Excel
to acquire priority vector W# in Table 29, where the
mean is acquired by the horizontal sum.
According to the figures obtained in Table 28, this
study calculates the standardized figures through Excel.
Huang et al. 15

Table 31. Maximized eigenvalue of recycling and disassembly.

Dimensions Horizontal summation (X) Horizontal summation average (Y) Z = (X)/(Y)

Green mark 2.030546 0.484103 4.194446

Recycling system establishing 0.795633 0.195069 4.078727
Natural resources recovery 0.688683 0.169134 4.071807
Recycling resource management 0.616130 0.151693 4.061680
Total 16.406660

Table 32. The single-goal dimension analysis of plastic mold sustainable design and development in a product service system.

Dimensions Evaluation indicators Advantages Ranking CR

Service support Green supply chain management 0.2485 2 0.007172

0.3358 Service life cycle evaluation 0.2614 1
Recycling system and remanufacture 0.1902 4
Environmental regulations 0.1910 3
Maintenance services 0.1088 5
Design integration Module replacement of connecting design 0.2700 1 0.081283
0.2042 Easy to disassembly and replacement 0.2334 2
Enhance the structure strength 0.2260 3
Disassembly module-structure simplification 0.1728 4
Multi-slot molds design 0.0978 5
Material selection Material features 0.2712 1 0.052225
0.1260 Biodegradable materials 0.2447 2
Lead-free and halogen-free material 0.1910 3
Simplify and compatible materials 0.1642 4
Lightweight 0.1289 5
Manufacturing process integration Using IT efficient manufacture 0.3771 1 0.025456
0.1240 Reduce the production waste 0.1753 2
Reduce the number of electrical discharge machining 0.1382 4
Using virtual technology analysis 0.1592 3
Environmentally surface treatment 0.0885 5
Reduce the adhesive forming technique 0.0617 6
Quality control measure Database establishing 0.3025 1 0.048299
0.1145 Incoming quality control 0.2360 2
Process control 0.2047 3
Precision measurement 0.1985 4
Warehouse management 0.0583 5
Recycling and reuse Green mark 0.4841 1 0.038077
0.0954 Recycling system establishing 0.1951 2
Natural resources recovery 0.1691 3
Recycling resource management 0.1517 4

CR: consistency ratio.

Upon recycling and reuse of Table 29 and priority vec-
tor W#, we acquire the horizontal sums and means, and
thus, determine the ranking of the evaluation of recy-
cling and reuse. This study multiplies the mean of pri-
ority vector W# of recycling and reuse of Table 29 by
the corresponding goal values of the pairwise compari-
son matrix of recycling and reuse of Table 28, which
results in the horizontal sums and priority vector W# of
Table 30.
This study divides the horizontal sums of priority
vector W# of recycling and reuse of Table 30 by the
mean of priority vector W# of recycling and reuse in
Table 29 and obtains the maximum eigenvalue (lmax)
of recycling and reuse of Table 31.
By Table 31, we acquire the maximum eigenvalues
lmax = 1/4(4.194446 + 4.078727 + 4.071807
+ 4.061680 = 4.101665. CI is CI = (lmax 2 n)/(n 2 1)
= (4.101665 2 4)/(4 2 1) = 0.033888. CR of recycling
and reuse and evaluation: when n = 4, the RIs are
RI = 0.89, CR = CI/RI = 0.033888/0.89 = 0.038077.
CI  0.1, CR  0.1, which meets the AHP suggestion
of Saaty and satisfies matrix consistency.
16 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 33. Analysis and assessment of all evaluation indicators.

Dimensions Evaluation indicators Advantages Ranking

Service support Green supply chain management 0.2485 7

0.3358 Service life cycle evaluation 0.2614 6
Recycling system and remanufacture 0.1902 17
Environmental regulations 0.1910 15
Maintenance services 0.1088 26
Design integration Module replacement of connecting design 0.2700 5
0.2042 Easy to disassembly and replacement 0.2334 10
Enhance the structure strength 0.2260 11
Disassembly module-structure simplification 0.1728 19
Multi-slot molds design 0.0978 27
Material selection Material features 0.2712 4
0.1260 Biodegradable materials 0.2447 8
Lead-free and halogen-free material 0.1910 16
Simplify and compatible materials 0.1642 21
Lightweight 0.1289 25
Manufacturing process integration Using IT efficient manufacture 0.3771 2
0.1240 Reduce the production waste 0.1753 18
Reduce the number of electrical discharge machining 0.1382 24
Using virtual technology analysis 0.1592 22
Environmentally surface treatment 0.0885 28
Reduce the adhesive forming technique 0.0617 29
Quality control measure Database establishing 0.3025 3
0.1145 Incoming quality control 0.2360 9
Process control 0.2047 12
Precision measurement 0.1985 13
Warehouse management 0.0583 30
Recycling and reuse Green mark 0.4841 1
0.0954 Recycling system establishing 0.1951 14
Natural resources recovery 0.1691 20
Recycling resource management 0.1517 23

Mold sustainable design factors in a PSS introduced
in plastic mold development
The findings of this study regarding the single-goal
dimension analysis of plastic mold sustainable design
and development in a PSS are shown in Table 32.
Upon the analytical result, this study reorganizes the
analytical units of all indices and conducts analysis of
all indices, as shown in Table 33.
Based on the previous figures, this study introduces
the mold sustainable design factors in a PSS of tradi-
tional plastic mold development (see Figure 4), in order
to establish a flow chart of plastic mold sustainable
design and development in a PSS (see Figure 5).
The flow chart of plastic mold sustainable design
and development in a PSS is based on the ranking of
the figures, as analyzed in the previous two sections.
Plastic mold sustainable development and evaluation in
a PSS is the first level, as shown by the green
background. The plastic mold sustainable design and
development model in a PSS is the second level, as
shown by the gray background, which refers to the
decision-making factors, including six categories: ser-
vice support, design integration, material selection,
manufacturing process integration, quality control, and
recycling and reuse. This study obtains ranking accord-
ing to the weighted figures of the weighted matrix in
the previous two sections, eliminates the factors with
insignificant product service decision-making elements,
and treats the ranking of significant factors in the pro-
cess as the third level.
Decision-making is based on the application of the
perspective of a PSS. This study mainly explores
decision-making regarding plastic mold development in
a PSS, in order to avoid any impact on the environ-
ment, and thus, enhances enterprise environmental
responsibility, lowers resource costs, and extends the
sustainable operations of enterprises and mold life
cycle. As the different ranking levels are associated,
through vertical system ranking and extension of the
steps, this study develops a circular system to lead to
effective service for plastic mold applications.
Based on standard mold development, customers
must first provide a draft or sample, then the company
designs the mold concept, offers the price, and pro-
poses the conditions and concerns of the molding.
According to the customers’ responses, the manufac-
turer develops customers’ basic molding information
Huang et al.
Figure 4. Development procedure of traditional plastic mold.
and scheduling. After discussing mold concept and
images, mold designers examine the appearance
according to the image of the product and then design
the mold. Once the customer validates the design, the
designers start molding by constructing a working
mold diagram and conducting mold analysis. Mold
manufacturing includes pole design, editing the mold
manufacturing program (computer numerical control
(CNC), wire cutting program), pole manufacturing
program (electrical discharge machining (EDM) wire
cutting program), and component manufacturing.
After mold testing, the mold action is examined by
mold closing and mold layout, and the result of the
mold trial is recorded in a report, which is viewed as
the criterion for future production. The sample of the
mold trial is then delivered to the customer.
However, in the sustainable design decision-making
factors of a PSS, there are six elements of the plastic
17
Figure 5. Flow chart of sustainable design and development of
plastic mold under product service system.
mold process that influence each other. There is also a
vertical relationship among the green strategy elements
of the factors. In addition, as this study is concerned
about the reduction of materials in a PSS, it develops
life cycle rankings for molds and designs the principles
of the different phases of plastic molding. Hence, the
services of processing, recycling, and reusing are
included in the life cycle of the mold, because when
recycling and reuse are considered in plastic mold
development, service factors will be studied. Upon ser-
vice, mold companies can establish a new business
model through partnership.
Conclusion
The main purpose of this study was to explore the con-
cept of product servitization in the plastic mold design
and development process, which would benefit
18
corporations in their development of products. By
clearly prioritizing the processes and management of
plastic molds to understand every stage of the green
strategy, and change the traditional development pro-
cess, corporations can reduce their waste of resources
and lower their costs, while simultaneously enhancing
their corporate social responsibility to establish new
competitive advantages. This study provides enterprises
with a method to implement a goods and services sys-
tem that can design products, provide production sup-
port services, and distribute the processes to achieve
the goal of dematerialization.
The literature review shows that understanding
product servitization could support the service pro-
cesses of product dematerialization. In the development
process of plastic products, the plastic mold is a key
factor that affects the performance of the final product.
In terms of the mold production cycle, in order to
realize the concept of service-supporting dematerializa-
tion, materials of molds and shaped materials should
be recycled by special personnel from special recycling
firms. In this way, zero-discarded regeneration technol-
ogy can be formed. In addition, distributors, manufac-
turers, and suppliers cannot reach consensus on
recycling or reproducing; thus, the majority of distribu-
tors are reluctant to recycle and reproduce products.
Therefore, the concept of recycling and reproducing
should be vigorously advocated.
Molds are the best tools of standardized production.
Nevertheless, due to the fierce competition in global
markets and the reduction of product life cycles, all
R&D and design projects should complete the develop-
ment of products within a limited period. The domestic
information industry and traditional manufacturing
industry have the tendency to integrate toward the
downstream gradually, and they will replace companies
that are solely dependent on manufacturing molds,
which will enhance the competitiveness and confidenti-
ality of product development. In the future, our focuses
will be how to propose the most effective vertical inte-
gration strategy using limited resources, and how to
minimize the uncertain risks of development projects.
Therefore, future studies can explore mold integration
issues and ‘‘industrial cluster’’ in a deeper manner.
Hence, if the product development processes of
molds, under the premise of environmental sustainabil-
ity, use green design principles and strategies to inte-
grate environmental considerations for all of stages of
the production cycle, it could immediately confront the
possible problems to the environment and further
reduce the influence of product life cycle on the envi-
ronment. It can be seen that the plastic molds have
requirements and factors related to the environment.
In addition, when companies bear greater responsi-
bility for the environment, product servitization pro-
vides new points of view and will allow companies to
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
become more competitive and innovative producers.
Therefore, the plastic industry must enhance green tech-
niques and further focus on the whole life cycle, from
design to manufacturing, in order to reduce their influ-
ence on the environment and adapt to national law. At
the same time, it can enhance the value of the entire
plastic mold industry in the market.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Chen SH, Yu PJ and Wen PC. Innovation policy for the
servitization of manufacturing: lessons from multi-coun-
try cases. In: Proceedings of the international association
for management of technology (IAMOT), Cairo, Egypt,
8–11 March 2010.
2. Hou KC. 2010 First season: the review and prospect of
plastic industry in Taiwan. Metal Industries Research &
Development Centre, Industry & Technology Intelligence
Service, 2010.
3. Mont O. Clarifying the concept of product–service sys-
tem. J Clean Prod 2002; 10: 237–245.
4. Brezet H. Product-service substitution: examples and cases
from the Netherlands, Funktions for saljning-product-
service systems. AFR-Report 299, 2000. Stockholm:
Swedish EPA.
5. Tran T and Park P. Development of a framework to cus-
tomize design methodologies for product service systems.
In: 2015 international conference on industrial engineering
and operations management (IEOM), Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, 3–5 March 2015, pp.1–9. New York:
IEEE.
6. Lee J and Kao HA. Dominant innovation design for
smart products-service systems (PSS): strategies and case
studies. In: 2014 annual SRII global conference, San Jose,
CA, 23–25 April 2014, pp.305–310. New York: IEEE.
7. Ribeiro I, Pecxas P and Henriques E. Incorporating tool
design into a comprehensive life cycle cost framework
using the case of injection molding. J Clean Prod 2013;
53: 297–309.
8. Hirano K and Asami M. Phenolic resins—100 years of
progress and their future. React Funct Polym 2013; 73:
256–269.
9. Saaty TL. Decision making in complex environments.
Super Decisions, 2003, http://sdbeta.superdecisions.com/
sd_resources/v28_man02.pdf
10. Ordouei MH, Elkamel A, Dusseault MB, et al. New sus-
tainability indices for product design employing environ-
mental impact and risk reduction: case study on gasoline
blends. J Clean Prod 2015; 108: 312–320.
Huang et al. 19

11. Ajukumar VN and Gandhi OP. Evaluation of green 12. Deng JY and Tzeng GH. The analytic hierarchy process:
maintenance initiatives in design and development of concepts, techniques and applications(I). J Chin Stat
mechanical systems using an integrated approach. J Clean Assoc 1989; 27: 5–27.
Prod 2013; 51: 34–46.