Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T10:45:54.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Designing Products with a Focus on Self-Explanatory Assembly, a Case Study

Part of: Industry 4.0

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Davy Daniël Parmentier ,
Jan Detand  and
Jelle Saldien
Davy Daniël Parmentier*
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University;
Jan Detand
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University;
Jelle Saldien
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University; IMEC- MICT-Ghent University
*
Contact: Parmentier, Davy Daniël, Ghent University, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Belgium, davy.parmentier@ugent.be

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Designing products with a focus on self-explanatory assembly can reduce the use of procedural instructions and the associated problems. This paper describes how different groups of students, in two different design-engineering courses designed or redesigned products in an attempt to make the assembly of the product self-explanatory. The design outcomes are discussed in relation to the design context and linked to existing theory on design for meaning.

Keywords

Industrial designIndustry 4.0Case study
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2081 - 2090
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Boess, S.U. (2008), “Meaning in product use: which terms do designers use in their work?”, Proceedings of DeSForM, Offenbach, article, pp. 20–27.Google Scholar
Fast-Berglund, Å., Fässberg, T., Hellman, F., Davidsson, A. and Stahre, J. (2013), “Relations between complexity, quality and cognitive automation in mixed-model assembly”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.04.011Google Scholar
Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motiviation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322Google Scholar
Gaver, W. (1991), “Technology affordances”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1977), “The theory of affordances”, in Shaw, R.E. and Bransford, J. (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception., Boston, Houghton Miffin.Google Scholar
Johansson, P.E.C., Enofe, M.O., Schwarzkopf, M., Malmsköld, L., Fast-Berglund, Å. and Moestam, L. (2017), “Data and Information Handling in Assembly Information Systems – A Current State Analysis”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 2099–2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.335Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (1995), “The intelligent use of space”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 73 No. 1–2, pp. 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00017-uGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1989), “Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories”, Product Semantic, University of Industrial Arts Helsinki.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. and Butter, R. (1984), “Product Semantics : Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form”, Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 4–9.Google Scholar
Lu, J. and Cheng, L. (2013), “Perceiving and Interacting Affordances : A New Model of Human – Affordance Interactions”, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-012-9202-2Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1988), The Psychology of Everyday Things, book, Basic book, New York.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1999), “Affordance, conventions, and design”, Interactions, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168Google Scholar
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, article, American Psychological Association, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. and Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998), “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205Google Scholar
You, H., Chen, K. and Kung, N.C https://doi.org/10. (2007), “Applications of affordance and semantics in product design”, Design Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.002Google Scholar