%0 Conference Paper
%F Oral 
%T Comparative Analysis of Methods for Identifying Opportunities for Reusing Solid Waste
%+ Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná [Curitiba, Brasil] = Federal Technological University of Paraná [Curitiba, Brazil] = Université technologique fédérale du Paraná [Curitiba, Brésil] (UTFPR)
%A Araújo, Roberta
%A Carvalho, Marco
%Z Part 1: Inventiveness and TRIZ for Sustainable Development
%< avec comité de lecture
%@ 978-3-030-86613-6
%3 Creative Solutions for a Sustainable Development
%B TRIZ Future conference
%C Bolzano, Italy
%Y Yuri Borgianni
%Y Stelian Brad
%Y Denis Cavallucci
%Y Pavel Livotov
%I Springer International Publishing
%S IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
%V AICT-635
%P 42-56
%8 2021-09-22
%D 2021
%R 10.1007/978-3-030-86614-3_4
%K Systematic Method for Identifying Reuse Opportunities of Supporting Goods (SMIROSG)
%K Product DNA
%K Waste reuse
%K Waste recycling
%K Design Research Methodology (DRM)
%Z Computer Science [cs]Conference papers
%X Waste produces a significant impact on the environment. According to the hierarchy of waste management, reuse should be preferred to material recovery and recycling, since less energy tends to be used. In order to prioritize waste reuse, the question of how to do it becomes important. There is no standard method aimed at finding reuse opportunities, and most of the published examples of reuse were identified through intuitive techniques, such as brainstorming, or even by chance. We have found two main systematic techniques: Product DNA and SMIROSG (Systematic Method for Identifying Reuse Opportunities of Supporting Goods). In this paper, we report a test involving both methods, focusing on an ordinary solid waste – the styrofoam tray. The results were analyzed, and improvements to the techniques were suggested. The main research methodology used to structure this study was the DRM (Design Research Methodology). The specific methods, Product DNA and SMIROSG were also used. We have found out that the SMIROSG method offers a greater scope of possibilities for reuse, although it is necessary to screen these possibilities, while Product DNA provides a more succinct range of opportunities for reuse, sometimes lacking more possibilities, however, all the alternatives offered are readily applicable, thus not requiring a new screening. Therefore, these are the aspects of each method in which improvements have been suggested. Given this, the requirements for a new method containing the best aspects of both SMIROSG and Product DNA were defined, aiming to eliminate the deficiencies presented in each method, improve the performance of the future method and enable an exponential increase of the effectiveness in identifying reuse opportunities.
%G English
%Z TC 5
%Z WG 5.4
%2 https://inria.hal.science/hal-04067793/document
%2 https://inria.hal.science/hal-04067793/file/513811_1_En_4_Chapter.pdf
%L hal-04067793
%U https://inria.hal.science/hal-04067793
%~ IFIP
%~ IFIP-AICT
%~ IFIP-TC
%~ IFIP-TC5
%~ IFIP-WG
%~ IFIP-WG5-4
%~ IFIP-TFC
%~ IFIP-AICT-635