In the last thirty years, end-of-life disassembly has been taking shape and evolving the way we design, produce, and discard products. End-of-life disassembly involves obtaining a product that has already served its purpose to the consumer and disassembling the product to recycle or reuse its components in the manufacturing process. The processes and ways that disassembly has been carried out over the years have varied drastically. This is because the sector is always changing to find the most efficient way to disassemble certain products. Currently, disassembly is profitable with ninety nine percent of products, is being integrated into every manufacturing industry imaginable, and should be utilized by every company that can profit off
…show more content…
These include a high start up cost, inefficiencies in disassembly, and allegations of disassembly not being profitable . Disassembly does take a significant investment to start and set up properly as mentioned in Johnson (1998) Priyono (2015) Sabaghi (2016) Wang (2013). This is because setting up infrastructure where end-of-life products can come back to the company as well as creating a system to disassemble products is costly. It also takes time for products to get to their end-of-life. The implications of this is that there is a window of time where no disassembly can take place because no products will be at their end-of-life stage. Therefore, companies that are looking to implement disassembly at the end-of-life must be stable and confident in their business and product. This can be a huge barrier to smaller businesses and firms that are looking for opportunities to become immediately more efficient and self reliant. In addition to high start up costs some companies might find that their product is harder to disassemble than other companies as stated in Priyono (2015) and Sabaghi (2016). Disassembly of products is not a universal process as stated in Johnson (1998) Priyono(2015) Sabaghi (2016). It has to be adapted to each product as mentioned in Priyono (2015) and Sabaghi (2016). This means that some products are better suited to be disassembled than others. If a company has a product that is more challenging to disassemble, then it may not be economically efficient to implement disassembly at end-of-life Sabaghi (2016). This is obviously very rare circumstances, but does need to be
These include a high start up cost, inefficiencies in disassembly, and allegations of disassembly not being profitable . Disassembly does take a significant investment to start and set up properly as mentioned in Johnson (1998) Priyono (2015) Sabaghi (2016) Wang (2013). This is because setting up infrastructure where end-of-life products can come back to the company as well as creating a system to disassemble products is costly. It also takes time for products to get to their end-of-life. The implications of this is that there is a window of time where no disassembly can take place because no products will be at their end-of-life stage. Therefore, companies that are looking to implement disassembly at the end-of-life must be stable and confident in their business and product. This can be a huge barrier to smaller businesses and firms that are looking for opportunities to become immediately more efficient and self reliant. In addition to high start up costs some companies might find that their product is harder to disassemble than other companies as stated in Priyono (2015) and Sabaghi (2016). Disassembly of products is not a universal process as stated in Johnson (1998) Priyono(2015) Sabaghi (2016). It has to be adapted to each product as mentioned in Priyono (2015) and Sabaghi (2016). This means that some products are better suited to be disassembled than others. If a company has a product that is more challenging to disassemble, then it may not be economically efficient to implement disassembly at end-of-life Sabaghi (2016). This is obviously very rare circumstances, but does need to be