Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:08:40.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An affordance-based approach for generating user-specific design specifications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

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, NY 14260, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When developing an artifact, designers must first understand the problem. This includes the benefits that the artifact must deliver and the user variation that is present. Each user has a unique set of human factors, preferences, personal knowledge, and solution constraints that could potentially influence the characteristics of the artifact. Currently, there is little work supporting the process of how to formally generate user-specific design specifications, resulting in ad hoc or a priori decisions when generating design specifications. Further, because most design processes generate design specifications manually, the number of design specifications is not typically addressed at the user level. This research presents an affordance-based approach for use in the early stages of design to help designers establish user-specific design specifications. This information can then be used in the creation of a system or set of systems that meets the demands of both the user(s) and the organization that is developing the artifact. An affordance-based approach is leveraged because it maintains the relational field of view among the user, existing artifacts, and the artifact(s) being designed. Once individual design specifications are generated, designers can use this information in later stages of the design process.

Keywords

AffordanceEarly Design Process PlanningProblem ClarificationUser Needs
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Special Issue 3: Affordances in Design , August 2015 , pp. 281 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Cormier, P. (2014). An affordance-based approach to evaluating consumer variation. PhD thesis. Proquest Database (1625970657).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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormier, P., Olewnik, A., & Lewis, K. (2014). Towards a formalization of affordance modeling for engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 25(3), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, P. (2008, July10). The dearth of innovation. Marketing Week.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S., Siddiqi, A., Lewis, K., & de Weck, O. (2007). Flexible and reconfigurable systems: nomenclature and review. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC2007-35745, Las Vegas, NV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvao, A., & Sato, K. (2005). Affordances in product architecture: linking technical functions and user tasks. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Design Automation Conf., Paper No. DETC2005-84525, Long Beach, CA.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garneau, C., & Parkinson, M. (2009 b). Including preference in anthropometry-driven models for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 131(10), 101006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, J., & Pine, J. (1997). The four faces of mass customization. Harvard Business Review 75(1), 91–101.Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J., Tebbetts, I., & Walker, R. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics. Final Report (NATICK/TR-89/027). Natick, MA: United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center.Google Scholar
Hauser, J., & Clausing, D. (1988). The House of Quality. Harvard Business Review 66(3), 63–74.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. (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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Saleh, J.H., Mark, G.T., & Jordan, N.C. (2009). Flexibility: a multi-disciplinary literature review and a research agenda for designing flexible systems. Journal of Engineering Design 20(3), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle 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(12), 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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