Cecilia made a very good point in refering to the tentacles of the octopus - i would even go further and compare general consumption mixed with advertising and a very personal "greed"factor and the competition vs. USP  situation of companies beeing rather a Hydra than an octopus.

As long as "generic" companies are flooding or rather "flushing" markets with copies of successfull products to sell for a cheaper price at the same time increasing the customer base (and sales potential) and increasing pressure for differentiation in the original product the "life cycle" of the original product will be artificially shorted.

For example "Manner Schnitten" - a very genuine Austrian chocolate wafer product has not been changed for a century, they are selling worldwide and still there is no comparable product on the market. So there was no need to change production lines, size of the product, etc... Consumer demand is fairly stable and increases with any tapped market. All factory units are still the same like 30 to 50 years ago (maybe they made some technical enhancement and water saving technologies as well as heat recovery). Obviously the embedded energy ratio by produced unit is decreasing per unit produced - without pressure to react to an increased competition in the market.

Many areas of economics are touched, e.g.:

1) the company creates jobs and pays taxes - together with suppliers and sales partners there are several 10,000 people involved.

2) added value by and buying power of all stake holders are increased

3) yes - obviously there is direct pollution as well as indirect one

4) the product itself is not neccessary for survival of any human beeing but has a delicious taste

It is true, as Axel Hugelmann mentions, that generic products are eroding part of the added value of non generic ones. On the other hand we are very well served by a great number of generic products (think screws, bolts, switches, light sources, but also many many lines of standard generic programming in software, and I still think that the ultimate product is the generic one because it seems to be very difficult to improve on it. Yes, design as part of the market economy (which is certainly not it's only role) is part of a system of direct democracy. The consumer "votes" by buying the product of his or her choice, without always being faced with the consequences of that choice. While walking around in a car showroom you are not reminded of the fact that in buying the car you buy into a transportation system that kills thousands of people and cripples many more, a year or that adds a substantial amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and requires large portions of land to drive, to park etc. The question is wether it is within the "reach" of the designer to do something about it other than making the product both in a passive as active way, safer, less energy consuming and less polluting and more durable...all factors that have been achieved step by step and are still improving.  I can only agree with Cecilia Lewis Kausel when she reminds us of the fact that most material in a car can be recycled. As far as metals are concerned one has to consider that none of them can be recycled without generating as much heat, and thus energy, as was necessary to produce them in the first place (with the exception of aluminum that is not extracted from bauxite by heat) So, yes, I agree Abdelhalim Zekry that many products are not the efficient solutions they pretend to be.  The question is not there. Most people will agree with you. The question is how we do something about it in a democratic society. In the past the things that were considered good or bad, often based on long time observation, were included in religious rules. The benefits of fasting from time to time, for instance became in several religions an obligation. Warmer climates produced stricter rules on the preparation and conservation of food etc. Fidelity to one partner seemed to work well etc. Eventually these set of rules became religions and by calling the source of them "God" they went beyond discussion. We can not do this anymore, and designers might think of themselves as "creators" they are not good in playing god, so we have to rely on the slow evolution and be satisfied with playing a role in step by step improvements, without letting us be frustrated by the visions that most of us share without knowing how to implement them....I am anxious to try these Austrian wafers.      

Dear Mr. Abdelhalim Zekry

Greetings. At the outset, thanks a nunch for posting this wonderful question which is interesting one. All the three answers above from experts and that will follow mine from Learned members of RG will throuw some more valuable points.

Having worked and working with Multiple products and their launches, I am of the opinion that utilisation effeciciency is considered partly and not partly in design.

For example, while I was working for Rail Car Designs, we consider the utilisation efficiency in the product spec through Design for Usability and Design for abuse elements. For example, the window bars in the trains were intended for safety, but in India one will notice, milk cans each weighing about 10 kgf (min) many will hang on window bars... However, whether the product is fully using its entire available time of its service availability NO... It could be 25% to 40% of its efficiency,. This relates to avoiding wastages like Cecillia has brought out. Koen has brought the concept of generic product that made me learn few things new.

The above analogy can be brought to car example too...

If we consider the product not being used is decrease in its efficiency and that must be considered in design, then it is a brand new idea which might throw new Inventions & concepts...

Would love track this thread, thanks again for kindling the discussion on a topic that will benefit many

Kindest Regards

Ramanan

This is a good question.

In general the efficiency is a ratio of an output to certain input. The utilization efficiency is the ratio of the real output to the maximum possible output. A demonstrative example is the utilization efficiency of a private car. Assume that the  car is thought to transport of five persons, it is really used only for one person, then its utilization efficiency will be 1/5=20 percent. If is used to transport 2 persons, its utilization efficiency will be 40 percent. Only when it is fully occupied by five persons its utilization efficiency will be 100 percent. We notice most of the time, the private cars are occupied by only one person. We can deduce that such product has very low utilization efficiency. We must not forget that such car consumes a very precious  depleted resource, the fuel. Here, the cars are designed and manufactured with a capacity and size of five persons while it most of the time utilized by one person.

An ultimate idea, one can make the size of the car adaptive to the the utilization. This may be difficult but not impossible. Such products  may be called demand adaptive or ultimately customized  products. Many science fictions became  a reality with science and technological advancements.

The second demonstrative example is the water tap. In order to wash  my face i would consume 5 litres on the average, while really the water reaching my face is about 1 litre, just estimations. The utilization efficiency is then 1/5= 20 percent. So, again many precious resources, drink water is lost because the crude control of water with the current water taps.

Sorry. we waste our resources by these very primitive equipment. I think we have to make our minds concerning demand adaptive products. We have to stop wasting our resources.

I would like to thank all my colleagues who gave an answer to my question.

I wait more comments and thoughts.

I find Filippo Salustri's example of the fire extinguisher interesting but for another reason than to highlight the difference and complementarity of efficiency and effectiveness. I find it interesting because it raises the question about function and not only the primary and secondary functions but the perceived function. If efficiency is to pursue the lowest possible effort or cost for the intended task or purpose it is important to define the task and purpose. In the fire extinguisher case one could, as F.S. does, describe it as a tool to extinguishing a small fire, and as such it's effectiveness can only be proven in that particular and rare situation. In that particular event it could be compared with other systems that serve the same purpose. One could also describe it as  a security measure that gives the users a legitimate sense of security, very much like the almost  invisible presence of air bags of the often comfortable safety belts. In industrial design we know that the description of the function of an object is a very basic step at the start of the development. Nobody would design cars the way they are if the described function was: to transport safely five or less people from point A to point B. That might be the very basic function but that is not what the users perceive as the only function, and so his or her choice will not be based on that primary function alone. Secondary functions are at least as important and have even acquired a legal status in the sense that the designer is responsible even for those functions. Standing on a chair for instance is not the primary function but as many other court cases have proven, it is within the designer's responsibility to make the chair strong enough to support that secondary use. But what about perceived functions that are based on the wrong or incomplete information? For instance the perceived safety of SUVs? Are we designing means of transportation that give the impression to safeguard the occupants from physical harm? One does not have to go back to the etymology of the word definition to know that it is related to the end, to what one will achieve as the end result. I suspect that too often we do not consider carefully enough the real purpose of the project or product and in doing so, we and up being neither efficient nor effective. I must admit that designers are not often given the opportunity to question the definition of the product or service. In my own career of over 400 products it has happened only a few times, but considering the success of these "few times" I think we should strongly encourage students to do so and teach them the tools to do it efficiently. 

Dear Filippo,

In your example of the fire extinguisher, it is known that it may  be used once in its lifetime. So, as the lifetime of the extinguisher increases its utilization efficiency increases as its effective material lasts longer. So, the lifetime of the extinguishing material which defines the utilization efficiency.

Thank you for your comment

Dear @Abdelhalim, this is a very important issue for the companies. The utilization efficiency has to be systematically taken into consideration in the conception, design and manufacturing phases of a any product. For example, after the II world war, Japan did use an efficient policy in producing automobiles that leads to a successful story in the world.

Dear @Abdelhalim, I find that you are dealing with Concurrent Engineering applications in Process of Product Design! I will be free to recommend some reading available here at ResearchGate!

The utilization efficiency of the consumer products, as You have defined is considered in both product design and manufacturing!

Article A Matrix Approach to the Customer-oriented Product Design

Article A Strategy for Managing Customer-oriented Product Design

Article Designing and manufacturing consumer products for functional...

The question tackles a very important issue in management and in engineering.  The utilization efficiency of the consumer products should sufficiently consider in design and manufacturing. Toyota Production system established by the Toyota Corporation depends on eliminating the major seven wastes.

"The focus of engineering design on achieving a superior product, processes or services from functional and economic factors is now shifting towards sustainable design which considers environmental, economic and social aspects. This can be achieved by integrating the sustainable aspects into the engineering design and analysis tasks throughout the product’s lifecycle. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT), Design for Environment (DfE), eco-efficiency and eco innovation should be part of collaborative product development."

Article EPES White paper: Product Concept Collaborative Manufacturab...

One issue in "utilization efficiency: for manufacturers and consumers is determining the measure and quantity of "optimum or target utility" with which to compare the actual "utility". What would be the maximum utility of a t-shirt for example.

Dear Prof. Zekry,

learning a lot from you and the other contributors I think we have to throw in another "variable" - maybe the utilization efficiency of the consumer products needs also to be seen from the consumer side. Propably adding some kind of investment-side view on it.

Cars will not be changed in design - but in usage - e.g. in many European cities there are more and more car sharing fleets popping up, last but not least as a side effect of digitalization and smart phones and the need of further business models. Neither design nor manufacturing of the cars have changed, but the convience of having a standardized product at hand virtually at any place in town without the hassle of maintenance, insurance fees, etc.. have contributed to this success story.  Obviously the utilization efficiency per car has increased at the same time the utilization efficiency of a standartized parking lot too - at least if you would  see it in the way that the parking lot is more efficient the more cars use it per day:) (in contrast to one car uses the p.l. for 24hours per day).

To put it in a nutshell: utilization efficiency maybe needs to cover several aspects of several products or services that need to be seen as a "conccurent" goup.

We should take into account the case of Steve Jobs. He never made a market research before design and implements his products. He rather creates products that people needs, according to Jobs. And he was successful, as all we know!  

Thank you Axel for your very good contributions. Really, this answer was in my mind but you coined your answer first. I admire your systematic way of thinking on the problems. You are a model for the young scientists. Wish you success.

I understand that the efficiency of use, or efficiency of purchase or consumption is very inconsiderate.

Some time ago we have been discussing these issues, from the eco-efficiency or the eco-design, but there is a perspective that involves industrial policies.

In the latter case, governments must implement certain measures not to allow the manufacture or import of shoddy products. This is how transferable cases of such low quality, that the very short time of use, should be discarded and produce two drawbacks: 1. inefficiency and ineffectiveness of purchase; and 2. generation of an environmental liability.

In regions where citizens have limited financial and material resources and their habitats have minimal presence of moisture and flooding, this type of furniture produced an alarming impact; academics and policy areas should not be neglected.

I believe utilization efficiency depends upon the its (products') "ease of use." and how much such a product fulfills the needs of its buyers. 

I do agree many products must be re-conceived and redesigned to increase the utilization efficiency. Yes, I agree It is likely to save our depleted and limited resources.

Take for example Apple I phone. Its utilization efficiency is high, because, the phone was specifically designed and its features (such as touch and type) were tailored to the needs of common users, who is not an expert in the field.  

I believe technologies such as "capturing best practices and reuse" or its related methodologies, are the ways to go. Such technologies promote better products, and thereby promote better "efficiency utilization " as well.

I have done  some research in that arena. The following article may illustrate one such the concept.. 

Research What is Knowledge-driven Automation (KDA)?

Products needs to be re-conceived and redesigned to increase the utilization efficiency. And,modernization of industries introducing new technologies to ease human on the production lines. Industries have installed machineries to assist workers. This is known as semi- automated process lines. Automated process lines are designed to operate with fewer workers. This can cut cost in the long run. A fully automated process line is designed to fulfil mass production output and is ideally suited to serve large. Information on human capital can optimize the true capacity of the workers performance; optimize available resources within the manufacturing sector. This will reduce wastage and increase the production yield. By taking these necessary steps industries can improve and maintain more efficient production lines in consumer items manufacturing sectors.

There are several products which are not used after purchase or small use only

For example radio ,pens,pencils

As the technology is advancing very fast old product remain at home and not utilised

Every product that is designed and produced needs to pay attention to aspects of efficiency, but careful consideration is needed if we look at various cases. Because the utilization of efficiency also has various kinds. Such as time efficiency, cost efficiency etc. So in your case it is also necessary to know whether efficiency is overall or focused. Because if you raise a case, the design and manufacturing of product pallet packaging will be different when compared to the food packaging process. Although in this case both are included in the packaging category.

At least to me the question seems to general. Functional efficiency is of course what every engineer and designer wants to include in the product they design. But we still have a limited approach to the problem, limited by the fact that we see all products as "personal property" whereas more and more products enter the shared economy and thus shared use. So instead of answering the general question I would like to concentrate on that aspect. The disadvantages of shared use are mostly: low maintenance by the users and the fact that it is difficult to know how long a tool or equipment has been used. We live in an information age and yet very little information is provided by the tools we use. Why is it that the information on rechargeable batteries in an electrical drill is not a standard indication? Why is there no small electronic devise that tells me how long I have used a tool, so that I can be charged accordingly? Why do I have to measure the maximum and minimum diameter of drill that I want to use in my electrical drill? Their is a multitude of information that could be given that is simply ignored. Do I really need a kitchen scale if my blender gives me the weight of the contents? Most of these informations are easy to produce, and could be mounted in such a way that they can easily be replaced when needed.

A last point on the environmental aspects of designing and packaging products. We all know that the biggest reason why we recycle less than 10% of the plastic packaging is the selection of the different plastics. In the best cases it degrades them to a re-used material that is not homogeneous. For 25 years or so we have a plastic material that is transparent and can be used for any of the packaging uses we have: bottles, blister packs, formed inserts etc. It can be both extrusion blow-moulded as injection blow-moulded it can be vacuum-formed, injection moulded and foamed. Why is it so difficult to use for all packaging only one single plastic: PETE. Recycle centers would love it, and users of PETE to…and no, there is no problem with the melt index etc. As professionals we should be able to do that. Sorry to take so much of your time on two small aspects of a question that can only be answered by writing a book…or two.