Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:35:21.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating consumer commonality leveraging consumer specific design information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2016

Phillip Cormier  and
Kemper Lewis
Phillip Cormier*
Affiliation:
Design of Open Engineering Systems Laboratory, University at Buffalo–SUNY, Buffalo, New York, USA
Kemper Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo–SUNY, Buffalo, New York, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Phillip Cormier, Design of Open Engineering Systems Laboratory, University at Buffalo–SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA. E-mail: phillipcormier@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When developing a product, designers must decide what consumer variation will be addressed and how they will address it, because each consumer has a unique set of human factors, preferences, personal knowledge, and solution constraints. Numerous design methodologies exist to support the design of a product or set of products that address this consumer variation. However, currently there is little work supporting the selection of a design methodology, resulting in an ad hoc or a priori decision before conceptual design begins. This paper presents an affordance-based design method for use prior to conceptual design to help designers understand the consumer variation that is present. This facilitates the creation of a product or set of products that meets the demands of both the consumer(s) and the organization that is developing the product. Once consumer variation is understood, conceptual design can be performed with a more complete understanding of the overall problem.

Keywords

Early Design Process PlanningProblem ClarificationUser Needs
Type
Regular Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 30 , Special Issue 4: Engineering Design Informatics , November 2016 , pp. 474 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bohm, M., Vucovich, J., & Stone, R. (2008). Using a design repository to drive concept generation. Journal of Computer and Information Science in Engineering 8(1), 014502. doi:10.1115/1.2830844 Google Scholar
Cormier, P., & Lewis, K. (2010). Design method selection to satisfy consumer variation: a meta-design approach. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf.,Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DETC2010-28901, Montreal.Google Scholar
Cormier, P., & Lewis, K., (2015). An affordance based approach for generating user-specific design specifications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29(3), 281–295. doi:10.1017/S089006041500027X Google Scholar
Cormier, P., Olewnik, A., & Lewis, K., (2014). Towards a formalization of affordance modeling for engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 25(30), 259–277. doi:10.1007/s00163-014-0179-3 Google Scholar
Cowper, P. (2008, July 10). The dearth of innovation. Marketing Week.Google Scholar
Dunn, G., & Everitt, B.S. (1982). An Introduction to Mathematical Taxonomy. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S., Olewnik, A., & Cormier, P. (2013). A review of mass customization across marketing, engineering, and distribution domains toward development of a process framework. Research in Engineering Design. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s00163-013-0162-4 Google Scholar
Ferguson, S., Siddiqi, A., Lewis, K., & de Weck, O. (2007). Flexible and reconfigurable systems: nomenclature and review. Proc. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC2007-35745, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
Garneau, C., & Parkinson, M. (2009 a). Optimization of tool handle shape for a target user population. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC2009-87444, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Garneau, C., & Parkinson, M. (2009 b). Including preference in anthropometry-driven models for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 131(10), 101006. doi:10.1115/1.3211092 Google Scholar
Gilmore, J., & Pine, J. (1997). The four faces of mass customization. Harvard Business Review 75(1), 91–101.Google Scholar
Gordon, C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J., Tebbetts, I., & Walker, R. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel: methods and summary statistics. Final report (NATICK/TR-89/027). Washington, DC: US Army.Google Scholar
Hernandez, G., Allen, J.K. & Mistree, F. (2002). Design of hierarchic platforms for customizable products. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering. Technical Conf., Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC2002-34095, Montreal.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Shin, J., Kim, S., Noh, J., & Kim, N. (2012). A framework of design for affordance using affordance feature repositories. Proc. ASME IDETC Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DETC2012-71017, Chicago.Google Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. M. (2001 a). Affordance: the fundamental concept in engineering design. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering. Technical Conf., Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DETC2001-21700, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. M. (2001 b). Strategic decisions in the early stages of product family design. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design for Manufacturing Conf., Paper No. DETC2001-21200, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. (2003). Affordance-based methods for design. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DETC2003-48673, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. (2009). Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign, and reverse engineering. Research in Engineering Design 20(4), 225–239.Google Scholar
Marion, T., Freyer, M., Simpson, T., & Wysk, R. (2006). Design for mass customization in the early stages of product development. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC2006-99641, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Meyer, M., & Lehnerd, A. (1997). The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Null, R., & Cherry, K. (1996). Universal Design: Creative Solutions for ADA Compliance. Belmont, CA: Professional Publications.Google Scholar
Phadke, M. (1989). Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Pine, J. (1993). Mass Customization—The New Frontier in Business Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, A., de Weck, O., & Iagnemma, K. (2006). Reconfigurability in planetary surface vehicles: modeling approaches and case study. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 59, 450–460.Google Scholar
Simpson, T.W. (2004). Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Simpson, T.W., Maier, J.R.A., & Mistree, F. (2001). Product platform design: method and application. Research in Engineering Design 13(1), 2–22.Google Scholar
Sneath, P.A., & Sokal, R.R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. (2012). Product Design and Development (5th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Williams, C., Allen, J., Rosen, D., & Mistree, F. (2004). Designing platforms for customizable products in markets with non-uniform demand. Proc. ASME Design Engineering. Technical Conf., Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DETC2004-57469, Salt Lake City, UT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar