Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 124 , 08001 ( 2017 ) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201712408001
ICTTE 2017
Identifying Unique Characteristics of Disassembly for Various Product
Recovery Methods with A Focus on Remanufacturing
Anjar Priyono1
1Department of Management, Universi tas Isl am Indonesia
Abstract. This paper aims to identify differences between disassembly for three product recovery methods:
remanufacturing, recycling, and repair. Existing studies focus on disassembly differences for the three recovery
methods from technical perspective only; those studies focus on the level of disassembly and the method of
disassembly. This study covers various aspects of disassembly such as knowledge of worker, value of the materials,
and interplays with other processes in product recovery. As many as seven products were used as case studies were
undertaken to identify differences of disassembly for three recovery methods. At the end of the paper, managerial
implicatio ns are present ed.
1. Introduction
Remanufacturing falls under the major theme of
sustainable manufacturing, which has received
considerable attention in recent years. There is a growing
trend within government bodies, such as European Union
Directives, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE), Kyoto Protocol and End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)
in favour of adopting more environmentally friendly
manufacturing practices and regulations. Economic
analysis has shown remanufacturing to be a prospective
business [1] and it is environmentally friendly from an
ecological perspective [2]. This is because
remanufacturing is not only viewed as an effective way to
minimise discarded waste, but also as part of a company’s
manufacturing and marketing strategy [3].
In terms of product types, automotive products are the
most common [3], but other product types, such as
photocopiers [8, 11, 12], forklift trucks [7], toner cartridge
[7] and telecommun ication devices [7, 14] are all gaining
in popularity. This evidence indicates that
remanufacturing has spread widely across many countries
and product types.
This significant increase in attention towards
remanufacturing practices suggests that more studies in
this area are badly needed. Such a study would contribute
to a better understanding of remanufacturing, which
would in turn lead to more economically feasible and
environmentally friendly manufacturing practices. Thi s
research aims to fill this particular need by investigating
how disassembly for remanufacturing process is different
from that of other recovery methods.
Through the better understanding of the disassembly
process, remanufacturing performance can be imp roved
by minimising uncertainties [10], with disassembly being
one of the main causes. Equally important are the
uncertainties that result from disassembly and how these
affect other processes in remanufacturing. As a result,
better-managed disassembly will lead to more
economically efficient remanufacturing operations.
Disassembly is a critical element of product recovery
activities, as it is the key link that connects product return
with product recovery, and a prerequisite for some
processes [11]. Disassembly is a prerequisite for
reprocessing and re-machining because the processes
cannot be carried out whilst the components are still
embedded in the products. In other processes, for example
cleaning and testing, the components do not have to be
entirely disassembled from the products; however, partial
disass e mbly may s till be neces s ary .
In this case, products must be disassembled to a
certain level in order to give access to certain components
so that cleaning and testing can be carried out. Without
disassembly it may not be possible for other processes in
remanufacturing to be undertaken, which would mean the
products could not be remanufactured.
Disassembly is also the main gateway of information,
where many data that is related to the remanufacturing
operat io n s originates [17, 18 ]. Info r mation is valuab le in
order to minimise any uncertainties in activities that are
related to remanufacture, such as purchasing new parts,
inventory management and production planning, and
scheduling [19–21]. The importance of information from
disassembly increases when remanufacturers deal with
complex products [14].
Uncertainties that arise on the disassembly shop floor
can affect other processes in remanufacturing. During
disassembly, not all of the parts can be recovered. It is
rare to achieve full recovery rates, so there is an increase
in the need for new parts [13]. As disassembly is cited as
2
MATEC Web of Conferences 124 , 08001 ( 2017 ) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201712408001
ICTTE 2017
the main source of parts during reassembly [16] and
availability of parts is the most costly operation in
remanufacturing [17].
Based on the significance of successful disassembly
demonstrated above, the overall remanufacturing process
can be enhanced by improving disassembly. Hammond et
al. [17] state in their survey report that disassembly is one
of the most serious problems found in remanufacturing
and, therefore, improving disassembly could improve
overall remanufacturing processes. The ability to manage
disassembly is the key to success for remanufacturers
because it affects several other parameters, including lead
times, price, delivery and quality [18].
There has been an abundance of research conducted
regarding disassembly that concentrates on product
disassembly as the focus of the investigation [19]. Many
of the studies that investigate disassembly do not mention
the ultimate purpose of product recovery from
disassembly. The final purpose of disassembly is
important because disassembly for remanufacturing is
different from that of other recovery methods. The output
of remanufacturing should be able to offer quality
performance at the same level, or higher, than the new
condition, whereas other recovery methods do not offer
such a performance specification [22, 27]. Therefore, the
relevant research question is as follow: How does
disassembly for remanufacturing differs from that of other
recovery methods?
The remainder of this paper is organised into 3
sections. Next section describes the method used to
conduct this study. Section 3 discusses the findings and
analysis. Existing studies in this topic are also discussed
in the section. Section 4, last section, summarises the key
findings of this paper.
2. Method
This study adopt inductive approach to analyse
disassembly for different recovery methods. Also,
multiple case study method was selected to allow
researcher undertake within and cross case analysis [22]
as well as direct and indirect replication logic [23].
Interview, observation, and ompany visits were conducted
to collect data. In the company visits there were
observations, interviews, document checks and discussion.
Four companies that reproses various products
participated in this study. In total there are 7 product types
investigated in this study, including gearbox, clutches, jet
engine, car engine, photocopier, truck engine, and heavy
equipment.
3 Findings and Analysis
3.1 Existing concepts in disasse mbly
Several studies examine the differences between
disassembly for remanufacturing and that for other
recovery methods; these are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Out p ut and disassembly level differences across
various end-of-life strategies
End-of-life
strategies
Disassembly level
Refe rence s
Remanufacturing
Total disassembly
[21]
Recy cling
Total disassembly
[21]
Rep airing
Partial disassembly
[22, 27, 28]
Reconditioning
Partial disassembly
[22, 27]
Source: adapted from [3]
From the perspective of the new process model of
disassembly that use a comprehensive perspective [11],
the above table has several drawbacks. First, the
differences highlighted focus on level of disassembly only,
which is related to 'hard’ factors. By contrast, ‘soft’
factors, such as data and information about products,
skills of employes, as well as an economic consideration
of disassembly, are not discussed [25].
The differences above also ignore the suggestion by
existing literature that disassembly can be improved using
early information. For example, the development of
embedded devices can provide data that can be used to
support disassembly [29, 30]. Such technology can assist
in reducing the amount of work involved in the process
and, consequently, remanufacturers can carry out
disassembly more efficiently [26]. In addition, from a
strategic perspective, developing organisational
relationship with OEMs would be helpful in obtaining
product specifications [3], [28]. These specifications are
useful as they assist remanufacturers in preparing a
facilit y t o carry out dis as s embly.
Second, the studies detailed above assume that
disassembly is an independent activity, ignoring the fact
that disassembly in remanufacturing is related to other
processes. Coordination with other processes, such as
material requirement planning (MRP), bill of material
(BOM) and purchase of new parts should also be
cons idered [29].
Further adding to the complexity of discussion is
differences between the work content, warranty and
quality of output in a remanufacturing context compared
to disassembly for repair, reconditioning or recycling [24].
The differences between the three recovery methods, in
terms of these parameters, are presented graphically in
Figure 1. If highlighted, these differences can aid a better
understanding of how disassembly for the three recovery
methods is not identical.
Fig ure 1 . Hierarchy of secondary production processes
Work content
Source: [34]
Repair
Reconditioning
Remanufacturing
Qualit y
Warranty
3
MATEC Web of Conferences 124 , 08001 ( 2017 ) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201712408001
ICTTE 2017
3.2 Comparing di sassembly for remanufacturing
and recycling
When distinguishing the differences between disassembly
for remanufacturing and disassembly for recycling, it is
important to stress the sources of the recovered value of
the cores. The recovered value of cores co mes from two
sources: (1) the materials used to make the components,
and (2) the manufacturing process which made the
components. These two sources of recovered value differ
in importance between remanufacturing and recycling. In
remanufacturing, both sources of recovered value are
important, whilst in recycling, only the value that derives
from materials is considered.
Table 2. Differences between disassembly for remanufacturing
and recy cling.
No.
Issue
Remanu-
facturing
Recycl ing
1.
M ethod to
disassemble.
Destructive
disas sembly is
not allowed.
Both dest ructive
and non-
destructive
methods are
possible.
2.
Priority to
recover.
Consider both
the value t hat
comes from the
manufacturing
process and the
materials to
make the
products.
Only cons iders th e
value of materials
to make the
products.
3.
Coordination
of
disassembly
with BOM
and MRP
There needs t o
be coordination
with BOM and
MRP.
There is no need
for any kind of
coordination, as
the disassembled
components are
going to be melt ed
into materials, not
to be reassembled.
In recycling, companies attempt to recover the value
from materials, regardless of how high the potential value
from the manufacturing process is. As the condition of the
components is irrelevant, the destructive method is
allowed in recycling. Components made from materials
with higher value will be given priority. Two components
that are made from the same materials would be treated in
the same way during disassembly, even if the residual
value of one component was higher than the other, for
example if one of the components had a higher value due
to a more complex manufacturing process, complex
product structure or rare component.
In remanufacturing, however, both sources of
recovered value are considered. For this reason,
components made from less expensive materials might be
given priority, rather than components that are made from
more expensive materials. This is because the former has
undergone complex production processes that make the
residual value higher compared to the latter one. It is the
shape of the components that makes the residual value
high, not the materials used to make them. Furthermore,
disassembly in recycling does not produce information
about the recovery rates of components and it does not
require the forecasting of new parts. The summary of all
the differences is presented in Table 2.
3.3 Comparing di sassembly for remanufacturing
and repairing
As there is a need to ensure that the output of
remanufacturing is equal to, or higher than, the new ones
[22, 33, 34], compulsory disassembly has to be
undertaken. This occurs because there are parts that must
be replaced with new ones, regardless of the condition, in
order to comply with legislation requirements, OEM
standards or company policies. Parts are replaced because
they have been identified as being typically worn out, a
potential risk to the user, or have a limited amount of life
remain ing. In s ome circu mstances, the parts are not
necessarily replaced with new ones, but all the parts
should be tested in order to ensure that they meet
acceptable quality standards. In this case, the parts still
have to be disassembled.
On the other hand, repairing that aims to bring back
the functionality of products [22, 27] does not require any
compulsory disassembly. Components are disassembled
only if they are related to the fault of the products. There
is no legislation, company policy or OEM standards that
requires specific components to be replaced with new
ones. Used components can be reinstalled in the products,
provided that they function normally.
From an economic perspective, compulsory
disassembly, which is found in remanufacturing, is not
efficient, since remanufacturers have to ca rry out
disassembles which are not always necessary [35, 36].
Even components whose conditions are almost equal to
new ones have to undergo disassembly. As a result, there
might be unnecessary activities conducted by
remanufacturers. In contrast, when it comes to repairing,
components are only disassembled when it is necessary,
for example to enable employees to carry out work on the
components and restore the functionality of the products.
The summary of these differences is provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Differences between disassembly for remanufacturing
and repairing.
No.
Iss ue
Remanu-
facturing
Repairing
1.
Compulsory
to
disassemble.
There are
compulsory
disassembly.
There is no
compulsory
disassembly.
2.
Economics
of
disassembly.
Not always
economically
efficient .
M ore efficien t
economically
than dis assembly
for
remanufacturing.
3.4 Comparing di sassembly for remanufacturing
and reconditioning
Remanufacturing needs higher level of disassembly than
reconditioning. This is because the resulting output of
reconditioning is lower than the new products, while the
output of remanufacturing is equal to or higher than the
new products [22, 27, 37]. For this reason,
4
MATEC Web of Conferences 124 , 08001 ( 2017 ) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201712408001
ICTTE 2017
remanufacturing requires more work and higher standards
than reconditioning does [34] – see Figure 1. To permit
more work in remanufacturing, there would have to be a
higher level of disassembly than there is in
reconditioning . More work in this regard refers to any
remanufacturing processes, such as a more detailed
inspection, more detailed testing, or a tighter criteria for
sorting and inspection. On the other hand, the output of
reconditioning has lower standards, which is not
necessarily as strict as the criteria for new products.
Disassembly for reconditioned products does not need to
ensure that the quality of the resulting products is the
same as new ones. There is no need to carry out
disassembly, provided that the modules or parts reach
acceptable quality standards.
Table 4. Differences between disassembly for remanufacturing
and reconditioning.
No.
Issue
Remanu-
facturing
Re con di -
tioni ng
1.
Level of
disassembly
Have higher level
than
reconditioning
Have lower
level than
remanu-
facturing.
2.
Compulsory
disassembly
There are
compulsory
disassembly
activities t hat
should be carried
out.
There is no
compulsory
disassembly
activities t hat
should be
carried out .
As discussed previously, there are mandatory
component replacements in remanufacturing. This causes
compulsory disassembly, which is not always
economically efficient. On the other hand, reconditioning
does not need mandatory component replacements. As
long as the components are still in acceptable condition,
they are not disassembled. Thus, disassembly in
reconditioning is only carried out whenever necessary to
do. From economic perspective, this disassembly is more
economically efficient than disassembly for mandatory
component replacement. The summary of the difference is
presented in Table 4.
4 Conclusion
This study offers insights regarding the differences of
disassembly for three recovery methods : remanufacture,
repair, and recycle. In this study, disassembly for the three
recovery methods was analysed comprehensively. It is not
only about the level, the method, and sequence of
disassembly, but also about skills of employees as well as
knowledge regarding the specification of new products.
The knowledge is required to ensure that the results of
remanufacturing process is equal or higher than the new
one.
References
1. R. Subramoniam, D. Huisingh, and R. B. Chinnam,
“Remanufacturing for the automotive aftermarket-
strategic factors: literature review and future research
needs,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 17, no. 13, pp. 1163–
1174, Sep. 2009.
2. G. D. Hatcher, W. L. Ijomah, and J. F. C. Windmill,
“Design for remanufacture: a literature review and
fut ure research needs,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 19, no.
17–18, pp. 2004–2014, No v. 2011.
3. Y. M. B. Saavedra, A. P. B. Barquet, H. Rozenfeld, F.
a. Forcellini, and A. R. Ometto, “Remanufacturing in
Brazil: case studies on the automotive sector,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 53, pp. 267–276, Aug . 2013.
4. B. Walsh, “An assessment of the remanufacture of
photocopier equipment commissioned by Market
Transformation Programme,” Cent. Remanufacturing
Reuse, no. May, pp. 1–14, 2009.
5. K. Mukherjee and S. Mondal, “Analysis of issues
relating to remanufacturing technology – a case of an
Indian company,” Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.,
vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 639–652, Jul. 2009.
6. A. King, J. Miemczyk, and D. Bufton, “Photocopier
remanufacturing at Xerox UK,” in D. Brissaudet al.
(eds.) Innovation in life cycle engineering and
sustainable development., 2006, pp . 173–186.
7. J. Östlin, E. Sundin, and M. Björkman, “Importance
of closed-loop supply chain relationships for product
remanufacturing,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 115, no. 2,
pp. 336–348, Oct. 2008.
8. C. Franke, B. Basdere, M. Ciupek, and S. Seliger,
“Remanufacturing of mobile phones—capacity,
program and facility adaptation planning,” Omega,
vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 562–570, Dec. 2006.
9. P. Rathore, S. Kota, and A. Chakrabarti,
“Sus t ainab ilit y t h rough remanufacturing in India: a
case study on mobile handsets,” J. Clean. Prod., vol.
19, no. 15, pp. 1709–1722, Oct. 2011.
10. K. H. Aksoy and S. M. Gupta, “Near optimal buffer
allocation in remanufacturing systems with N-
policy,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 496–
508, Nov. 2010.
11. A. Priyono, W. Ijomah, and U. Bititci, “Disassembly
for re manufacturing – A systematic literature review,
new model development and future research needs,”
J. Ind. Eng. Manag. JIEM, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2016–9,
2016.
12. M. L. Junior and M. G. Filho, “Production planning
and control for remanufacturing : literat u re revie w
and analysis,” Prod. Plan. Control, vol. 23, no. 6, pp.
37–41, 2012.
13. V. Guide Jr., “Production planning and control for
remanufacturing: Industry practice and research
needs,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 18, pp. 467–483, 2000.
14. G. Ferre r and M. E. Ketzenberg, “Value of
information in remanufacturing complex products,”
IIE Tra ns., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 265–277, Mar. 2004.
15. G. Fe rrer, “ Yield in format ion a n d s u p p lie r
responsiveness in remanufacturing operations,” Eur.
J. Oper. Res., vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 540–556, Sep. 2003.
16. G. Ferrer and D. C. Whybark, “Material planning for
a remanufacturing facility,” Prod. Oper. Manag., vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 112–124, Jan . 2001.
17. R. Hammond, T. Amezquita, and B. Bras, “Issues in
the automotive parts remanufacturing industry – A
discussion of results from surveys performed among
5
MATEC Web of Conferences 124 , 08001 ( 2017 ) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201712408001
ICTTE 2017
remanufacturers,” Int. J. Eng. Des. Autom. – Spec.
Issue Environ. Conscious Des. Manuf., vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 27–46, 1998.
18. J. R. Duflou, B. Willems, and W. Dewulf, “Towards
self-disassembling products design solutions for
economically feasible large-scale disassembly,” in D.
Brissaud et al. (eds.), Innovation in Life Cycle
Engineering and Sustainable Development, 200 6, p p .
87–110.
19. M. A. Ilgin and S. M. Gupta, “Environmentally
conscious manufacturing and product recovery
(ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art.,” J.
Environ. Manage., vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 563–91, 2010.
20. W. Ijomah, S. Childe, and C. McMahon,
“Remanufacturing - a key strategy for sustainable
development.,” in Proceedings of the third
international conference on design and manufacture
for sustainable development, September 1-2, 2004
Loughborough, UK., 2004.
21. M. Thierry, M. Salomon, J. Van Nunen, and L. Van
Wassenhove, “Strategic issues in product recovery
man agement,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 37, no. 2, pp.
114–135, 1995.
22. K. M. Eisenhardt, “Building theories from case s tudy
research,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 14, no. 4, pp.
532–550, 1989.
23. R. K . Yin , Case study research: Design and methods,
4th ed. London, United Kingdom.: Sage Publications,
Inc., 2009.
24. W. L. Ijomah, C. A. McMahon, G. P. Hammond, and
S. T. Newman, “Development of robust design-for-
remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of
sustainable development,” Int. J. Prod. Res., v ol. 45,
no. 18–19, pp. 4513–4536, Sep. 2007.
25. A. Priyono, W. L. Ijomah, and U. S. Bititci,
“Strategic operations framework for disassembly in
remanufacturing,” J. Remanufacturing, vol. 5, no. 11,
pp. 1–16, 2015.
26. M. A. Ilgin and S. M. Gupta, “Comparison of
economic benefits of sensor embedded products and
conventional products in a multi-product disassembly
line,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 748–763,
Nov. 2010.
27. O. Ondemir and S. M. Gupta, “Quality management
in product recovery using the Internet of Things: An
optimization approach,” Comput. Ind., vol. 65, no. 3,
pp. 491–504, Apr. 2014.
28. S. Lind, D. Olsson, and E. Sundin, “Exploring inter-
organizational relationships in automotive component
remanufacturing,” J. Remanufacturing, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 1–14, 2014.
29. H. B. Lee, N. W. Cho, and Y. S. Hong, “A
hierarchical end-of-life decision model for
determining the economic levels of remanufacturing
and disassembly under environmental regulations,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 1276–1283, Sep.
2010.
30. R. T. Lund, Remanufacturing: the experience of the
USA and implications for the developing countries.
Was hingto n , D.C.: World Ban k, 1984.
31. W. L. Ijomah, “A tool to improve training and
operational effectiveness in remanufacturing,” In t. J.
Comput. Integr. Manuf., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 676–701,
Sep . 2008.
32. A. Desai and A. Mital, “Evaluation of
disassemblability to enable design for disassembly in
mass production,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 32, no. 4,
pp. 265–281, Oct. 2003.
33. M. R. Johnson and M. H. Wang, “Planning product
disassembly for material recovery opportunities,” Int .
J. Prod. Res., vol. 33, n o. 11, p p . 3119–3142., 1995.
34. W. L. Ijomah, C. A. McMahon, G. P. Hammond, and
S. T. Newman, “Development of design for
remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable
manufacturing,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., vol.
23, no. 6, pp. 712–719, Dec. 2007.
