Method and equipment for evaluating ecological design of electronic and electrical product and storage medium

Abstract

According to the embodiment of the invention, the invention provides a method and equipment for evaluating the ecological design of an electronic and electrical product, and a storage medium. The method comprises the following steps: determining a first group of indexes for evaluation based on regulation standards related to ecological design; determining a second group of indexes for evaluating the product from the first group of indexes based on design information of the to-be-evaluated product; using a plurality of models corresponding to a plurality of dimensions of index evaluation to determine a group of importance scores corresponding to the second group of indexes, each importance score in the group of importance scores corresponding to a corresponding index in the second group of indexes, the plurality of dimensions including an index value dimension and an index improvement dimension; and determining a set of target metrics for evaluating the product from the second set of metrics based on the set of importance scores. Therefore, various indexes can be evaluated in combination with multiple dimensions such as technical standards and environmental improvement, so that the setting of the indexes is more comprehensive, the ecological design process is optimized, and unnecessary cost input is avoided.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The exemplary embodiments disclosed herein generally relate to the field of electrical equipment, and particularly to methods, apparatus and computer-readable storage media for eco-design assessment of electronic and electrical products. Background Technology

[0002] As people's awareness of environmental protection and sustainable development continues to grow, the theory and application of eco-design for electronic and electrical products are becoming increasingly important. Eco-design of electronic and electrical products refers to a design philosophy that considers environmental protection and resource conservation throughout the entire product lifecycle—from design and production to use and recycling—to reduce pollution and resource consumption, thereby achieving sustainable development. Currently, some electronic and electrical products exhibit significant shortcomings in eco-design: designs include excessive packaging, the use of toxic and hazardous substances, and a lack of holistic design concepts. Insufficient coordination between upstream and downstream links in the industrial chain leads to the ineffective implementation of environmental protection requirements in product design and production.

[0003] Therefore, reasonable indicators need to be set during the product design phase for the eco-design assessment of electronic and electrical products. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In a first aspect of this disclosure, a method is provided for determining an assessment for eco-design of electrical and electronic products. The method includes: determining a first set of indicators for assessment based on regulatory standards related to eco-design; determining a second set of indicators for assessing the product from the first set of indicators based on design information of the product to be assessed; determining a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators using multiple models corresponding to multiple dimensions of indicator evaluation, each importance score in the set of importance scores corresponding to a corresponding indicator in the second set of indicators, the multiple dimensions including indicator value dimensions and indicator improvement dimensions; and determining a set of target indicators from the second set of indicators based on the set of importance scores.

[0005] In a second aspect of this disclosure, an electronic device is provided. The device includes at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit. When executed by the at least one processing unit, the instructions cause the device to perform the method of the first aspect.

[0006] In a third aspect of this disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided. This computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program that can be executed by a processor to implement the method of the first aspect.

[0007] It should be understood that the content described in this content section is not intended to limit the key or essential features of the embodiments of this disclosure, nor is it intended to restrict the scope of this disclosure. Other features of this disclosure will become readily apparent from the following description. Attached Figure Description

[0008] The above and other features, advantages, and aspects of the embodiments of this disclosure will become more apparent from the accompanying drawings and the following detailed description. In the drawings, the same or similar reference numerals denote the same or similar elements, wherein:

[0009] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of an index evaluation system according to some embodiments of the present disclosure is shown;

[0010] Figure 2 Example diagrams illustrating regulatory standard importance evaluation according to some embodiments of this disclosure are shown;

[0011] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of an indicator evaluation score table according to some embodiments of the present disclosure is shown;

[0012] Figure 4 A flowchart illustrating the process of evaluating the eco-design of electrical and electronic products according to some embodiments of this disclosure is shown; and

[0013] Figure 5 A block diagram of an apparatus capable of implementing several embodiments of the present disclosure is shown. Detailed Implementation

[0014] It is understood that before using the technical solutions disclosed in the various embodiments of this disclosure, users should be informed of the types, scope of use, and usage scenarios of the personal information involved in this disclosure in an appropriate manner in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, and user authorization should be obtained.

[0015] For example, upon receiving a user's active request, a prompt message is sent to the user to explicitly inform them that the requested operation will require the acquisition and use of the user's personal information. This allows the user to independently choose whether to provide personal information to the software or hardware, such as the electronic device, application, server, or storage medium performing the operations of this disclosed technical solution, based on the prompt message.

[0016] As an optional but non-limiting implementation, in response to a user's active request, sending a prompt message to the user can be done via a pop-up window, where the prompt message can be presented in text format. Furthermore, the pop-up window can also include a selection control allowing the user to choose "agree" or "disagree" to provide personal information to the electronic device.

[0017] It is understood that the above notification and user authorization process are merely illustrative and do not constitute a limitation on the implementation of this disclosure. Other methods that comply with relevant laws and regulations may also be applied to the implementation of this disclosure.

[0018] It is understood that the data involved in this technical solution (including but not limited to the data itself, the acquisition or use of the data) shall comply with the requirements of relevant laws, regulations and related provisions.

[0019] Embodiments of this disclosure will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. While some embodiments of this disclosure are shown in the drawings, it should be understood that this disclosure can be implemented in various forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided to provide a more thorough and complete understanding of this disclosure. It should be understood that the accompanying drawings and embodiments of this disclosure are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of this disclosure.

[0020] It should be noted that the headings of any section / subsection provided herein are not limiting. Various embodiments are described throughout this document, and embodiments of any type may be included under any section / subsection. Furthermore, embodiments described in any section / subsection may be combined in any way with any other embodiments described in the same section / subsection and / or different sections / subsections.

[0021] In the description of embodiments of this disclosure, the term "comprising" and similar terms should be understood as open-ended inclusion, i.e., "including but not limited to". The term "based on" should be understood as "at least partially based on". The term "one embodiment" or "the embodiment" should be understood as "at least one embodiment". The term "some embodiments" should be understood as "at least some embodiments". Other explicit and implicit definitions may also be included below. The terms "first", "second", etc., may refer to different or the same objects. Other explicit and implicit definitions may also be included below.

[0022] As mentioned earlier, some electronic and electrical products currently exhibit significant shortcomings in eco-design: designs often involve excessive packaging, the use of toxic and hazardous substances, and a lack of holistic design philosophy. Insufficient coordination across the supply chain leads to ineffective implementation of environmental requirements in product design and production. In eco-design processes, there is often a focus on whether developed products meet predetermined standards, neglecting the selection of appropriate indicator sets in the early stages and how to apply these evaluation criteria to guide product design. Furthermore, eco-design evaluation standards often focus only on establishing general indicators, lacking consideration for personalized indicators specific to different product types, regions, and industries.

[0023] In view of this, embodiments of the present disclosure provide a scheme for evaluating the eco-design of electrical and electronic products. In this scheme, a first set of indicators is determined based on regulatory standards related to eco-design. Based on the design information of the product to be evaluated, a second set of indicators is determined from the first set of indicators. Using multiple models corresponding to multiple dimensions of indicator evaluation, a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators is determined, where each importance score in the set of importance scores corresponds to a corresponding indicator in the second set of indicators. The multiple dimensions include indicator value dimensions and indicator improvement dimensions. Subsequently, based on the set of importance scores, a set of target indicators is determined from the second set of indicators for evaluating the product. In this way, reasonable indicators can be set according to multiple dimensions for the eco-design evaluation of electrical and electronic products.

[0024] The following description will focus on exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0025] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of an index evaluation system 100 according to some embodiments of the present disclosure is shown. Figure 1 As shown, the indicator evaluation system 100 described herein generally includes a green knowledge base 110, a first indicator determination module 120, a second indicator determination module 130, an indicator evaluation module 140, and a target indicator determination module 150. The indicator evaluation system 100 can be any type of digital tool with indicator evaluation functions, and the embodiments of this disclosure are not limited in terms of the type and application scenarios of the indicator evaluation system.

[0026] In some embodiments, the green knowledge base 110 may store regulatory standards related to the ecodesign of electronic and electrical products. For example, the regulatory standards may include current domestic and international green and low-carbon policies and regulations 111, as well as domestic and international technical standards related to ecodesign. These regulatory standards can be used to determine indicators for ecodesign assessment, for example, to construct an ecodesign indicator database.

[0027] In some embodiments, a knowledge extraction model can be used to determine a first set of indicators for the assessment based on regulatory standards related to ecodesign. For example, using the first indicator determination module 120, based on knowledge extraction from the green knowledge base 110, high-frequency keywords related to ecodesign appearing in regulatory standards can be sorted and classified to determine the first set of indicators for the assessment, thereby establishing an ecodesign indicator library 127.

[0028] The laws and regulations 111 stored in the green knowledge base 110 can be continuously updated to meet the design requirements of the product. In some embodiments, the green knowledge base 110 can be any type of digital tool with storage capabilities, such as a database, etc., and the embodiments disclosed herein are not limited thereto.

[0029] In some embodiments, the first group of indicators in the ecodesign indicator library 127 may belong to at least one of the following categories: material and substance indicators 121, packaging and operation indicators 122, energy efficiency indicators 123, lifespan extension indicators 124, and recycling indicators 125. In some embodiments, the ecodesign indicator library 127 also includes an external certification label 126. The determination of the external certification label 126 will be further described below. It should be understood that the indicators in the ecodesign indicator library 127 can be determined according to actual product needs, and this disclosure does not impose any limitations on this.

[0030] Product information database 160 includes design information of the product to be evaluated. Based on the design information of the product to be evaluated, second indicator determination module 130 can determine a second set of indicators for evaluating the product from a first set of indicators. In some embodiments, second indicator determination module 130 can determine screening criteria based on the product's design information. Screening criteria may include at least one of product category, sales region, and application industry. Subsequently, second indicator determination module 130 can filter the first set of indicators to obtain a second set of indicators based on the screening criteria.

[0031] The indicator evaluation module 140 can utilize multiple models corresponding to multiple dimensions of indicator evaluation to determine a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators. Each importance score in the set of importance scores corresponds to a corresponding indicator in the second set of indicators. The multiple dimensions may include, for example, an indicator value dimension 141 and an indicator improvement dimension 142. The indicator value dimension is associated with the indicator's value to eco-design, such as the indicator's value to regulatory standards, market value, etc. The indicator improvement dimension is associated with the indicator's improvement effect on eco-design, such as the indicator's improvement effect on technological optimization, environmental improvement, etc. In some embodiments, the indicator evaluation module 140 can determine a first score for the indicator in the indicator value dimension and a second score in the indicator improvement dimension for the indicators in the second set of indicators. Then, the indicator evaluation module 140 can determine the indicator's importance score based on the first and second scores. The indicator's importance score can be used for product eco-design evaluation. Based on a set of importance scores, the target indicator determination module 150 can determine a set of target indicators from the second set of indicators for evaluating the product.

[0032] Continue to refer to Figure 1In embodiments of this disclosure, the product information database 160 includes design information of the products to be evaluated. In some embodiments, the design information may include, for example, product requirement information 161 and product design information 162. Product requirement information 161 may indicate the task design documents and product design requirements for different types of products and different projects, to help product teams and ecosystem designers better understand the basic information of the product as well as user and market needs, thereby guiding product design and development. Product design information 162 may indicate product design-related information such as different product design schemes, product bill of materials, product manufacturing processes, product operation and maintenance plans, product environmental compliance reports, and product environmental assessment reports.

[0033] The second indicator determination module 130 can determine a second set of indicators for evaluating the product based on the design information of the product to be evaluated, from the first set of indicators. In some embodiments, the second indicator determination module 130 can analyze the product's design requirements based on the product requirement information 161 input from the product information database 160, thereby determining the screening criteria. Screening criteria may include, for example, product category 131, sales region 132, and application industry 133. Subsequently, the second indicator determination module 130 can filter out eco-design indicators that are not applicable to the product based on the screening criteria to obtain the second set of indicators. Indicators that are not applicable to the product are not further evaluated. In some embodiments, the applicability of indicators can be manually confirmed and modified.

[0034] In some embodiments, the second indicator determination module 130 can determine recommended indicators that are not in the first set of indicators and are associated with the screening criteria, and add the recommended indicators to the second set of indicators. Recommended indicators may, for example, be at least a portion of external certification labels 126 in the eco-design indicator library 127. In some embodiments, the second indicator determination module 130 can automatically match regional mandatory regulatory standards that the product should comply with and recommend suitable external labels for application. External labels may, for example, be product standards that can obtain quality recognition in a specific region, and these product standards may include multiple recommended indicators that can be added to the second set of indicators.

[0035] In some embodiments, the target determination module 150 may utilize multiple models corresponding to multiple dimensions of indicator evaluation to determine a set of importance scores 153 corresponding to the second set of indicators. Each importance score 153 in the set of importance scores 153 corresponds to a corresponding indicator in the second set of indicators. In some embodiments, the multiple dimensions may include, for example, an indicator value dimension 141 and an indicator improvement dimension 142.

[0036] In some embodiments, the target determination module 150 may determine a first score 151 for an indicator in the indicator value dimension 141 for an indicator in the second set of indicators. For example, the indicator value dimension may be associated with the regulatory value and market value of the indicator.

[0037] Specifically, the indicator evaluation module 140 can determine the regulatory value score 1411 of the indicator. The regulatory value score 1411 indicates the importance of the indicator in regulatory standards related to ecodesign. Furthermore, the indicator evaluation module 140 can also determine the market value score 1412 of the indicator. The market value score 1412 indicates the market value of the indicator. Subsequently, the indicator evaluation module 140 can determine a first score 151 of the indicator in the indicator value dimension 142 based on a weighted sum of the regulatory value score 1411 and the market value score 1412. In some embodiments, the first score 151 can represent the value evaluation score of the ecodesign indicator, and the weights of the regulatory value score 1411 and the market value score 1412 in the value evaluation score can be determined separately to calculate the value evaluation score. In some embodiments, during the process of the target determination module 150 determining the first score 151 based on the weighted sum of the regulatory value score 1411 and the market value score 1412, the following formula can be used for calculation:

[0038] S Vi =r R ·S Ri +r M ·S Mi

[0039] Among them, S Vi That is, the first score of indicator i is 151, r R As the weight of the regulatory value score 1411 in the first score 151, r M The market value score is weighted in the first score of 151, and r M =1-r R The following section will detail the determination of the weight of the regulatory value score 1411 in the first score 151.

[0040] In some embodiments, the regulatory value score S can be determined based on at least one of the mandatory nature of at least one regulatory standard and the mandatory nature of indicator i. Ri The weights are then assigned. Based on these weights, the first score S of indicator i can be determined accordingly. Vi .

[0041] For example, because the regulatory standards themselves have different control types and the different control types of the eco-design indicators mentioned therein have different definitions, different regulatory standards have different importance assessments.

[0042] Figure 2 Example diagrams are shown for regulatory standard importance evaluation 200 according to some embodiments of this disclosure. (e.g.) Figure 2 As shown, in some embodiments, the regulatory standard importance assessment 200 includes a regulatory constraint type 210, an indicator (threshold) constraint type 220, and a rating 230. The regulatory constraint type 210 indicates the degree of mandatory nature of a particular regulation in the field of ecodesign. If the regulation must be met, its constraint type can be described as "mandatory." Conversely, if the regulation is not mandatory, its constraint type can be described as "optional."

[0043] In some embodiments, knowledge graphs can be used to deconstruct laws and regulations to obtain indicators or thresholds related to ecodesign. Indicator (threshold) constraint type 220 indicates the degree of mandatory nature of these indicators or thresholds. Similarly, if an indicator or threshold must be met, its constraint type can be represented as "mandatory." Conversely, if an indicator or threshold is not mandatory, its constraint type can be represented as "optional."

[0044] In some embodiments, a first constraint type for at least one of the aforementioned regulatory standards and a second constraint type for indicator i can be determined. The first constraint type may be, for example, a legal and regulatory constraint type 210. The second constraint type may be an indicator (threshold) constraint type 220. Based on the first and second constraint types, a rating is determined for the regulatory standard and indicator i. The rating indicates the degree of mandatory compliance with the regulatory standard and indicator i.

[0045] like Figure 2 As shown, for example, when both legal and regulatory constraint type 210 and indicator (threshold) constraint type 220 indicate "mandatory," rating 230 can be, for example, "4" to indicate that the law or regulation has high mandatory force regarding the indicator. For example, when legal and regulatory constraint type 210 indicates "optional" and indicator (threshold) constraint type 220 indicates "mandatory," rating 230 can be, for example, "2" to indicate that the law or regulation has low mandatory force regarding the indicator. For example, when legal and regulatory constraint type 210 indicates "mandatory" and indicator (threshold) constraint type 220 indicates "optional," rating 230 can be, for example, "3" to indicate that the law or regulation has high mandatory force regarding the indicator. For example, when both legal and regulatory constraint type 210 and indicator (threshold) constraint type 220 indicate "optional," rating 230 can be, for example, "1" to indicate that the law or regulation has low mandatory force regarding the indicator. In some embodiments, based on the ratings of each law or regulation regarding the indicator, the weight of the regulatory value score in the first score can be determined. R For example, the calculation formula can be:

[0046]

[0047] Where n1 is the number of regulations rated "4" in the 200 regulations and standards importance assessments, n2 is the number of regulations rated "3" in the 200 regulations and standards importance assessments, and S F The weights of all the filtered regulations are summed.

[0048] It should be understood that the above method for calculating weights is merely exemplary, and any suitable method can be used to determine the weight of the regulatory value score for a specific indicator based on the degree of mandatory nature of the regulatory standards and / or the degree of mandatory nature of the indicators. For example, the weight of the regulatory value score for indicator i can be determined by considering the proportion of the ratings of the various regulatory standards that include indicator i in the sum of the ratings of all regulatory standards.

[0049] In some embodiments, the indicator evaluation module 140 can use a first model among multiple models to determine the regulatory value score of the indicator. The first model may include, for example, a knowledge graph model, which can be used to determine the centrality value of the indicator in regulatory standards, and based on the centrality value, determine the regulatory value score 1411. Specifically, textual information in regulatory documents can be converted into structured data through knowledge extraction, and multiple core concepts can be identified as entity categories based on the characteristics of knowledge in the green design field, thereby constructing a knowledge graph model for the green design field. Then, based on the product category and function, country of sale, and application industry input into the product information database 160, the knowledge graph model can automatically match the list of applicable regulations, sum the number of times the indicator is mentioned in different regulations after filtering to obtain the centrality value of the indicator, and use range standardization to convert it into a regulatory standard score. In some embodiments, the calculation of the regulatory value score 1411 can, for example, use the following two formulas:

[0050] D i =∑ j D ij

[0051]

[0052] Among them, D i Let D be the centrality value of index i. ij S represents the centrality value of the ecological design index i mentioned in regulation j. Ri The standard score for indicator i is the regulatory score, which can range from 0 to 100.

[0053] In some embodiments, the indicator evaluation module 140 can determine the market value score of an indicator using a second model among multiple models. The second model may, for example, include an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP model can determine the relative importance of an indicator to multiple market value factors, and determine the market value score 1412 of the indicator based on these relative importance factors. Specifically, the market value score S... Mi The following formula can be used for calculation:

[0054]

[0055] Where j = 1, 2, 3, 4 can represent four dimensions: customer statement, corporate sustainability strategy, competitor performance, and performance of similar (outdated) products, respectively, while S Mij This can represent market value scores across various dimensions. Market value scores S represent different dimensions of market value. Mij Quantitative calculations can be performed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Specifically, a hierarchical structure model can be established. Then, comparative scoring is performed using AHP to construct pairwise comparison matrices. Subsequently, weight vectors are calculated and consistency checks are conducted. The specific calculation process can be as follows:

[0056] Calculate the product Mi of each row of the judgment matrix:

[0057]

[0058] Calculate eigenvectors

[0059]

[0060] Normalization is performed:

[0061]

[0062] Then w = |w1 w2 ... w n |T is the eigenvector.

[0063] Calculate the largest eigenvalue λ max :

[0064]

[0065] Calculate the consistency index (CI) based on the largest eigenvalue:

[0066]

[0067] Where n is the number of paired comparison factors.

[0068] Calculate the consistency ratio:

[0069]

[0070] RI can be determined by querying the random consistency table.

[0071] It should be understood that the above calculation method is for illustrative purposes only, to help those skilled in the art understand the technical solution of this disclosure, and is not intended to constitute any limitation on this disclosure.

[0072] Continue to refer to Figure 1 In some embodiments, the target indicator determination module 150 can determine a second score 152 for an indicator in the indicator improvement dimension 142, based on an indicator in the second set of indicators. For example, the indicator improvement dimension can be associated with the indicator's effect on improving the ecological environment.

[0073] Specifically, the indicator evaluation module 140 can determine the technical optimization value 1421 of the indicator. The technical optimization value 1421 indicates the value by which the indicator meets the technical requirements of the product. Furthermore, the indicator evaluation module 140 can also determine the environmental optimization value 1422 of the indicator. The environmental optimization value 1422 indicates the value by which the indicator meets the environmental footprint requirements. Subsequently, the target indicator determination module 150 can determine a second score 152 for the indicator in the indicator improvement dimension 142 based on the technical optimization value 1421 and the environmental optimization value 1422. In some embodiments, the second score 152 can represent the improvement evaluation score of the eco-design indicator. The methods for determining the technical optimization value 1421, the environmental optimization value 1422, and the second score 152 will be described in detail below.

[0074] In some embodiments, the indicator evaluation module 140 can utilize a third model among multiple models to determine the technically optimized value of the indicator. The third model may, for example, include a parameter optimization model. Using the parameter optimization model, parameter optimization simulations can be performed on a second set of indicators for the product's lifespan and performance targets to determine a set of parameter values ​​corresponding to the second set of indicators. The parameter value corresponding to the indicator within this set of parameter values ​​is then determined as the technically optimized value 1421 of the indicator. Specifically, a parameter optimization method can be applied for modeling analysis. In comparing product technical solutions, this method can determine the optimal parameter combination through certain strategies and methods to achieve the best performance or effect. The determined optimal parameter value is also the corresponding technically optimized value of the indicator.

[0075] In some embodiments, for quantifiable indicators, corresponding target values ​​can be entered. For example, for indicators applicable to each product category, the upper and lower limits of their feasible range can be automatically matched. Among them, for material and substance-related indicators, the lower limit is zero and the upper limit is 100%. For other indicators, such as lifespan and power consumption, the lower limit comes from relevant standard values, such as enterprise standards and product standards, while the upper limit can be obtained by simulation using Bayesian optimization.

[0076] In some embodiments, the indicator evaluation module 140 can utilize a fourth model among multiple models to determine the environmentally optimized value of the indicator. The fourth model may, for example, include an environmental footprint model. By constructing an environmental footprint model for the product, the impact of the values ​​of a second set of product indicators on the environmental footprint can be defined. Then, by minimizing the product's impact on the environmental footprint, a set of values ​​corresponding to the second set of indicators is determined. Subsequently, the values ​​corresponding to the indicators in this set of values ​​are determined as the environmentally optimized values ​​of the indicators. Specifically, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method can be used to standardize the parameter results and understand the relative magnitude of each environmental impact indicator result. In this process, the parameter results can be transformed by using a selected benchmark value as a divisor, and then the top-ranked characteristic indicators are selected and assigned weights.

[0077] Specifically, the indicator evaluation module 140 can receive product information and related technical parameters from the product information database 160 for LCA modeling, and then conduct a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) based on life cycle inventory analysis (LCI). In this process, the calculation may include converting the inventory analysis results into general units using characteristic factors, and summing the conversion results for uniform impact categories to obtain quantified indicator characteristic results. For example, the calculation formula is as follows:

[0078]

[0079] Among them, C i E represents the characteristic results of the product's environmental impact factors. ij This represents the environmental footprint of environmental factor i at j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (representing the manufacturing stage, distribution stage, installation stage, use stage, and disposal stage, respectively).

[0080] In some embodiments, the indicator evaluation module 140 can select a suitable benchmark product from the product information database 160 and import the environmental assessment report and environmental factor characterization results of the benchmark product as a benchmark value for normalization.

[0081] N i =C i / C Bi

[0082] Where, N i For the normalized result, C Bi The result is the characteristic value of environmental factor i for the benchmark product.

[0083] In some embodiments, by formula W i =N i ×W Fi The weighted result W can then be obtained. iAmong them, W Fi The weight of environmental factor i can be calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

[0084] In the process of screening key environmental impact factors, if the N of environmental factor i i ≥1 or These are the key environmental impact factors. In some embodiments, sensitivity analysis can be performed on the key environmental impact factors to set the ecological design indicators corresponding to the main design factors as mandatory indicators.

[0085] In some embodiments, during the process of the target determination module 150 determining the second score 152 based on the technical optimization value 1421 and the environmental optimization value 1422, a system dynamics model can be used for solution. Specifically, after determining the applicable indicators and their corresponding upper and lower limits, with the goal of minimizing the comprehensive environmental footprint impact of the key environmental impact factors determined by LCA, and considering the cost and the limit of environmental factor reduction, system dynamics modeling can be performed on multiple selected quantifiable indicators to calculate the optimal value of each indicator, i.e., the environmental optimization value.

[0086] For example, a mathematical model of system dynamics can be built based on the environmental footprint of environmental factors during the manufacturing, transportation, and usage stages. In some embodiments, based on the second indicator determination module 130 and the results of the indicator improvement dimension analysis, the mathematical model established for the product to be evaluated is as follows:

[0087] Total Env.footprint = PEF mfg +PEF tp +PEF use

[0088] Subsequently, based on considerations of development strategy and product projects, constraints are formulated for the above model, which may include limits on the rate of cost increase, limits on the reduction of environmental factors, such as the reduction amounts of the three environmental impact factors EF1, EF2 and EF3, etc.

[0089] The mathematical model for cost is as follows:

[0090] Total Cost = C material +C tp

[0091] The optimal parameters for each component are obtained through the above calculations. These parameters can then be matched with ecological design indicators, transformed into optimal values ​​for the indicators, and used as the new maximum values ​​V for evaluating the improvement of each indicator. Timax’ This allows for the evaluation of the achievable value of the actually selected technology.

[0092] In some embodiments, the second score of ecological design indicator i in the second set of indicators can be calculated using the following formula:

[0093]

[0094] Among them, S Ai V represents the second score of the i-th ecological design indicator in the second set of indicators, which is 152. Ti V is the upper limit of the technical optimization value 1421 for index i. Timin V is the lower limit of the technical optimization value 1421 for index i. Timin 'To obtain the optimal value of index i returned by the system dynamics model, S' Tibasic The lower limit of the technical feasibility of indicator i can be determined through the technical parameter table of indicator i.

[0095] Having obtained the first scores 151 and second scores 152 for all indicators in the second set of indicators, the target indicator determination module 150 can determine the importance scores 153 of multiple indicators based on the first and second scores of multiple indicators. In some embodiments, the importance score S of indicator i can be calculated based on the following formula. i :

[0096]

[0097] That is, the average score of the first score 151 and the second score 152 is calculated to obtain the importance score 153, also known as the sustainability score.

[0098] In some non-restrictive examples, taking the unquantifiable first indicator as an example, the regulatory standard score for the first indicator can be determined to be 77.1 points, which accounts for 18% of the weight in the ecological design indicator value analysis; the market value score is 47.3 points, which accounts for 82% of the weight in the ecological design indicator value analysis; therefore, the value assessment score S... Vi =77.1*18%+47.3*82%=52.7 points; the technical feasibility score for the non-quantifiable indicator is 100 points. Therefore, the final sustainability score, or importance score, of the first indicator is Si=(52.7+100) / 2=76.4 points.

[0099] In some non-restrictive examples, taking a quantifiable second indicator as an example, the regulatory standard score for the second indicator can be determined to be 20, with the regulatory standard score accounting for 18% of the value analysis of the ecological design indicator; the market value score is 65.8, with the market value score accounting for 82% of the value analysis of the ecological design indicator; therefore, the value assessment score S... Vi=20*18%+65.8*82%=57.6 points; the technical feasibility score for the quantifiable indicator is 67 points based on the selected target value. Therefore, the final sustainability score for this second indicator is Si=(57.6+67) / 2=62.3 points.

[0100] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of an indicator evaluation score table 300 according to some embodiments of the present disclosure is shown. According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the target indicator determination module 150 can determine a set of target indicators from a second set of indicators based on a set of importance scores 153.

[0101] In some embodiments, the target indicator determination module 150 can output an indicator evaluation score table. For example... Figure 3 As shown, the indicator evaluation score table 300 may include a second set of indicators 310, a first score 151, a second score 152, and an importance score 153 for each indicator. In some embodiments, the importance scores 153 of each indicator in the second set of indicators 310 may be ranked to determine the target indicator by comparing the scores.

[0102] In some embodiments, the target indicator determination module 150 can store the importance scores 153 of each indicator in the second set of indicators 310 into the product information database 160 for use as product design information 162 for later use. When evaluating a new product in relation to the indicators in the second set of indicators 310, the indicator evaluation module 140 can directly reference the previously stored importance scores 153, thereby saving computation time and improving evaluation efficiency.

[0103] According to the evaluation scheme for eco-design of electronic and electrical products according to the embodiments of this disclosure, analysis can be carried out from the perspectives of value evaluation and improvement evaluation, so as to quantify the importance of indicators and define priorities through scientific evaluation methods, thereby making the setting of indicators more comprehensive and the eco-design process more complete.

[0104] Figure 4 A flowchart illustrating a process for evaluating the eco-design of electrical and electronic products according to some embodiments of this disclosure is shown. For example, process 400 may be implemented at indicator evaluation system 100.

[0105] In Box 410, a first set of indicators for evaluation is determined based on regulations and standards related to eco-design. In Box 420, a second set of indicators for evaluating the product is determined from the first set of indicators, based on the product's design information. In Box 430, a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators is determined using multiple models corresponding to multiple dimensions of indicator evaluation. Each importance score in the first set of importance scores corresponds to a specific indicator in the second set of indicators. These multiple dimensions include indicator value dimensions and indicator improvement dimensions. In Box 440, a set of target indicators for evaluating the product is determined from the second set of indicators based on the first set of importance scores.

[0106] In some embodiments, determining the first set of indicators for evaluation based on regulatory standards related to eco-design includes: determining the first set of indicators for evaluation using a knowledge extraction model based on regulatory standards, wherein the first set of indicators belongs to at least one of the following categories: material and substance indicators, packaging and operation indicators, energy efficiency indicators, life extension indicators, and recycling indicators.

[0107] In some embodiments, determining a second set of indicators for evaluating a product based on the design information of the product to be evaluated from a first set of indicators includes: determining screening criteria based on the product's design information, the screening criteria including at least one of product category, sales region, and application industry; and selecting a second set of indicators from the first set of indicators based on the screening criteria.

[0108] In some embodiments, determining a second set of indicators for evaluating the product based on the design information of the product to be evaluated from the first set of indicators further includes: determining recommended indicators associated with screening criteria, wherein the recommended indicators are not in the first set of indicators; and adding the recommended indicators to the second set of indicators.

[0109] In some embodiments, determining the screening criteria based on the product's design information includes: analyzing the product's design requirements based on the product's design information; and determining the screening criteria based on the design requirements.

[0110] In some embodiments, using multiple models corresponding to multiple dimensions of indicator evaluation, determining a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators includes: for the indicators in the second set of indicators, determining a first score for the indicator in the indicator value dimension and a second score in the indicator improvement dimension; and determining the importance score of the indicator based on the first score and the second score.

[0111] In some embodiments, the indicator value dimension is associated with the regulatory value and market value of the indicator, and determining the first score of the indicator in the indicator value dimension includes: using a first model among multiple models to determine the regulatory value score of the indicator, which indicates the importance of the indicator in regulatory standards related to eco-design; using a second model among multiple models to determine the market value score of the indicator, which indicates the market value of the indicator; and determining the first score of the indicator in the indicator value dimension based on a weighted sum of the regulatory value score and the market value score.

[0112] In some embodiments, determining the first score of an indicator in the indicator value dimension based on a weighted sum of regulatory value scores and market value scores includes: determining the weight of the regulatory value score based on at least one of the mandatory degree of at least one regulatory standard and the mandatory degree of the indicator; and determining the first score based on the weight of the regulatory value score.

[0113] In some embodiments, the first model includes a knowledge graph model, and determining the regulatory value score of an indicator includes: using the knowledge graph model to determine the centrality value of the indicator in the regulatory standard; and determining the regulatory value score based on the centrality value.

[0114] In some embodiments, the second model includes a hierarchical analysis model, and determining the market value score of an indicator includes: using the hierarchical analysis model to determine the relative importance of the indicator to multiple market value factors; and determining the market value score of the indicator based on the multiple relative importance factors.

[0115] In some embodiments, the indicator improvement dimension is associated with the indicator's effect on improving the ecological environment, and determining the second score of the indicator in the indicator improvement dimension includes:

[0116] Using the third model among multiple models, the technical optimization value of the indicator is determined, which indicates the value of the indicator in meeting the technical requirements of the product; using the fourth model among multiple models, the environmental optimization value of the indicator is determined, which indicates the value of the indicator in meeting the environmental footprint requirements; and based on the technical optimization value and the environmental optimization value, the second score of the indicator in the indicator improvement dimension is determined.

[0117] In some embodiments, determining the technical optimization value of the indicator includes: performing parameter optimization simulation on the second set of indicators using a parameter optimization model for the product's lifespan and performance targets, so as to determine a set of parameter values ​​corresponding to the second set of indicators; and determining the parameter value corresponding to the indicator from the set of parameter values ​​as the technical optimization value of the indicator.

[0118] In some embodiments, the fourth model includes an environmental footprint model, and determining the environmentally optimized value of the indicator includes: constructing an environmental footprint model of the product, the environmental footprint model defining the impact of the values ​​of a second set of indicators of the product on the environmental footprint; determining a set of values ​​corresponding to the second set of indicators by minimizing the impact of the product on the environmental footprint; and determining the value corresponding to the indicator in the set of values ​​as the environmentally optimized value of the indicator.

[0119] Figure 5 A block diagram of a device 500 capable of implementing various embodiments of the present disclosure is shown. It should be understood that... Figure 5 The device 500 shown is merely exemplary and should not be construed as limiting the functionality and scope of the embodiments described herein. The device 500 can be used to perform the test methods described above, and may be implemented, for example, as the performance evaluation system 100.

[0120] like Figure 5 As shown, device 500 is in the form of a general-purpose electronic device. Components of device 500 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 510, memory 520, storage device 530, one or more communication units 540, one or more input devices 550, and one or more output devices 560. Processing unit 510 may be a physical or virtual processor and is capable of performing various processes according to programs stored in memory 520. In a multiprocessor system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions in parallel to improve the parallel processing capability of electronic device 500.

[0121] Electronic device 500 typically includes multiple computer storage media. Such media can be any accessible media that is accessible to electronic device 500, including but not limited to volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. Memory 520 can be volatile memory (e.g., registers, cache, random access memory (RAM)), non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory), or some combination thereof. Storage device 430 can be removable or non-removable media and can include machine-readable media, such as flash drives, disks, or any other media that can be used to store information and / or data and can be accessed within electronic device 500.

[0122] Electronic device 500 may further include additional removable / non-removable, volatile / non-volatile storage media. Although not explicitly stated... Figure 5As shown, disk drives for reading from or writing to removable, non-volatile disks (e.g., "floppy disks") and optical disk drives for reading from or writing to removable, non-volatile optical disks can be provided. In these cases, each drive can be connected to a bus (not shown) via one or more data media interfaces. Memory 520 may include computer program product 525 having one or more program modules configured to perform various methods or actions of various embodiments of this disclosure.

[0123] Communication unit 540 enables communication with other electronic devices via a communication medium. Additionally, the functionality of components of electronic device 500 can be implemented using a single computing cluster or multiple computing machines capable of communicating via communication connections. Therefore, electronic device 500 can operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more other servers, network personal computers (PCs), or another network node.

[0124] Input device 550 can be one or more input devices, such as a mouse, keyboard, trackball, etc. Output device 560 can be one or more output devices, such as a monitor, speaker, printer, etc. Electronic device 500 can also communicate with one or more external devices (not shown) via communication unit 540 as needed. These external devices include storage devices, display devices, etc., and can communicate with one or more devices that enable user interaction with electronic device 500, or with any device that enables electronic device 500 to communicate with one or more other electronic devices (e.g., network card, modem, etc.). Such communication can be performed via input / output (I / O) interface (not shown).

[0125] According to an exemplary implementation of this disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided that stores computer-executable instructions thereon, wherein the computer-executable instructions are executed by a processor to implement the methods described above. According to an exemplary implementation of this disclosure, a computer program product is also provided, which is tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and includes computer-executable instructions, which are executed by a processor to implement the methods described above.

[0126] Various aspects of this disclosure are described herein with reference to flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams of methods, apparatuses, devices, and computer program products implemented according to this disclosure. It should be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer-readable program instructions.

[0127] These computer-readable program instructions can be provided to a processing unit of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine such that, when executed by the processing unit of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, they create means for implementing the functions / actions specified in one or more blocks of the flowchart and / or block diagram. These computer-readable program instructions can also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that causes a computer, programmable data processing apparatus, and / or other device to operate in a particular manner. Thus, the computer-readable medium storing the instructions comprises an article of manufacture that includes instructions for implementing aspects of the functions / actions specified in one or more blocks of the flowchart and / or block diagram.

[0128] Computer-readable program instructions can be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other device to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other device to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby causing the instructions that execute on the computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other device to perform the functions / actions specified in one or more boxes of a flowchart and / or block diagram.

[0129] The flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of this disclosure. In this regard, each block in a flowchart or block diagram may represent a module, segment, or portion of an instruction, which contains one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function. In some alternative implementations, the functions indicated in the blocks may occur in a different order than those indicated in the drawings. For example, two consecutive blocks may actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they may sometimes be executed in reverse order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each block in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, may be implemented using a dedicated hardware-based system that performs the specified function or action, or using a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0130] Various implementations of this disclosure have been described above. These descriptions are exemplary and not exhaustive, nor are they limited to the disclosed implementations. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the described implementations. The terminology used herein is chosen to best explain the principles, practical applications, or improvements to technology in the market, or to enable others skilled in the art to understand the various implementations disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A method for evaluation of eco-design of an electronic and electrical product, comprising: determining a first set of indicators for the evaluation based on regulation standards related to eco-design; determining a second set of indicators for evaluation of a product to be evaluated from the first set of indicators based on design information of the product; determining a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators using a plurality of models corresponding to a plurality of dimensions of indicator evaluation, each importance score in the set of importance scores corresponding to a respective indicator in the second set of indicators, the plurality of dimensions including an indicator value dimension and an indicator improvement dimension; and determining a set of target indicators for evaluation of the product from the second set of indicators based on the set of importance scores. 2.The method of claim 1, wherein determining a first set of indicators for the evaluation based on regulation standards related to eco-design comprises: determining the first set of indicators using a knowledge extraction model based on the regulation standards, wherein the first set of indicators belong to at least one of the following categories of indicators: material and substance indicators, packaging and operation indicators, energy efficiency indicators, life extension indicators, recycling utilization indicators. 3.The method of claim 1, wherein determining a second set of indicators for evaluation of a product to be evaluated from the first set of indicators based on design information of the product comprises: determining a screening condition based on the design information of the product, the screening condition including at least one of a product category, a sales region, an application industry; and screening the second set of indicators from the first set of indicators based on the screening condition. 4.The method of claim 3, wherein determining a second set of indicators for evaluation of a product to be evaluated from the first set of indicators based on design information of the product further comprises: determining a recommended indicator associated with the screening condition, the recommended indicator not being in the first set of indicators; and adding the recommended indicator to the second set of indicators. 5.The method of claim 3, wherein determining a screening condition based on the design information of the product comprises: analyzing design requirements of the product based on the design information of the product; and determining the screening condition based on the design requirements. 6.The method of claim 1, wherein determining a set of importance scores corresponding to the second set of indicators using a plurality of models corresponding to a plurality of dimensions of indicator evaluation comprises: determining, for an indicator in the second set of indicators, a first score of the indicator in the indicator value dimension and a second score of the indicator in the indicator improvement dimension; and determining an importance score of the indicator based on the first score and the second score. 7.The method of claim 6, wherein the indicator value dimension is associated with a regulation value and a market value of the indicator, and determining a first score of the indicator in the indicator value dimension comprises: determining a regulation value score of the indicator using a first model in the plurality of models, the regulation value score indicating an importance of the indicator in the regulation standards related to eco-design. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ determining, using a second model of the plurality of models, a market value score of the indicator, the market value score indicating a market value of the indicator; and determining the first score of the indicator in the indicator value dimension based on a weighted sum of the regulatory value score and the market value score.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein determining the first score of the indicator in the indicator value dimension based on a weighted sum of the regulatory value score and the market value score comprises: determining a weight of the regulatory value score based on at least one of a degree of enforceability of the regulatory criteria and a degree of enforceability of the indicator; and determining the first score based on the weight of the regulatory value score.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the first model comprises a knowledge graph model, and determining a regulatory value score of the indicator comprises: determining, using the knowledge graph model, a centrality value of the indicator in the regulatory criteria; and determining the regulatory value score based on the centrality value.

10. The method of claim 7 or 9, wherein the second model comprises an analytic hierarchy process model, and determining a market value score of the indicator comprises: determining, using the analytic hierarchy process model, a corresponding plurality of relative importance of the indicator with respect to a plurality of market value factors; and determining the market value score of the indicator based on the plurality of relative importance.

11. The method of claim 6, wherein the indicator improvement dimension is associated with an effect of the indicator on ecological environment improvement, and determining a second score of the indicator in the indicator improvement dimension comprises: determining, using a third model of the plurality of models, a technical optimization value of the indicator, the technical optimization value indicating a value of the indicator satisfying a technical requirement of the product; determining, using a fourth model of the plurality of models, an environmental optimization value of the indicator, the environmental optimization value indicating a value of the indicator satisfying an environmental footprint requirement; and determining the second score of the indicator in the indicator improvement dimension based on the technical optimization value and the environmental optimization value.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the third model comprises a parameter optimization model, and determining a technical optimization value of the indicator comprises: performing, using the parameter optimization model, a parameter optimization simulation on the second set of indicators for a lifetime and performance target of the product to determine a set of parameter values corresponding to the second set of indicators; and determining, as the technical optimization value of the indicator, a parameter value of the set of parameter values corresponding to the indicator.

13. The method of claim 11 or 12, wherein the fourth model comprises an environmental footprint model, and determining an environmental optimization value of the indicator comprises: constructing the environmental footprint model of the product, the environmental footprint model defining an impact of values of the second set of indicators of the product on an environmental footprint; determining a set of values of the second set of indicators by minimizing the impact of the product on the environmental footprint; and determining, as the environmental optimization value of the indicator, a value of the set of values corresponding to the indicator. determining a value corresponding to the metric in the set of values as the environment-optimized value for the metric.

14. An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processing unit, cause the electronic device to perform the method of any of claims 1-13.

15. A computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program being executable by a processor to implement the method of any of claims 1-13.

Images