A Reflective Report on the Design ProcessCommuter Headphones Project (DM306)

4/24/2012PDE 200948192 kerrie.noble@strath.ac.ukKerrie Noble

I declare that this submission is entirely my own original work.

This is the final version of my submission.

I declare that, except where fully referenced direct quotations have been included, no aspect of this submission has been copied from any other source.

I declare that all other works cited in this submission have been appropriately referenced.

I understand that any act of Academic Dishonesty such as plagiarism or collusion may result in the non-award of my degree.

Signed …………………….…………………... Date 13/03/2012

Headphone (non-wireless) Design Process

Headphones – Defining the Type of Product

Headphones, in my opinion, are defined under the classification of a shopping product. A shopping product is one which customers purchase and consume on an intermittent basis. Consumers are willing to spend time in locating the precise product they want as they are more expensive than those products which they purchase and consume on a regular basis. These products may also possess psychological benefits for the purchases, such as ‘status’ level within their social group. The target market for this type of product can be quite small and marketers are often more selective when choosing distribution outlets to sell their products. [1]

Definition of Terms

Design Philosophies – The meaning of design philosophy can be summarised with a single quote.

“Engineers are not the only professional designers. Everyone designs who devises courses of action

aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. The intellectual activity that produces material

artefacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social

welfare policy for a state.”[2]

Thought Bubble

Headphones are a very user oriented product. The success of the product will depend on the

personal opinion and preference of the consumer. This will directly affect the design process and

methodologies used. In my opinion the most suitable processes and methodologies will be those

which have the feelings and thoughts of the user at the centre of the operation. I can also foresee

that this product will have to repeat several steps in the design process to produce the best solution.

This observation is based on the large amount of user interaction involved in the use of the

product, designs and prototypes will have to be tested by the customer and changes made

accordingly before manufacturing commences. This means a design process which highlights the

iterative nature of this process should be used as this most suits the development of the product in

order to reach its intended purpose.

Thought Bubble

My thoughts on a design philosophy are that the definition of design can correspond to the

definition of a design philosophy. I would define design as an entity which can improve the look

or function of an object or system which achieves the outcome required by the customer by

utilizing a structured process. By utilizing this definition of design my definition of a design

philosophy would then be the process or type of thinking which leads a designer to acheiving a

successful design outcome.

The philosophy, or thinking process, can vary from person to person but the outcome should be the

same. A successful product must be the outcome but the method of reaching this target can be

different, it should however be suitable for the product being designed and the person designing it.

Design Framework – The best practice for many businesses/processes, including design, is to use a framework to identify and define the key processes required to produce the best outcome.[3]

Design Methodologies – Design methodologies help to create the framework for the design process. A key characteristic of a design methodology is to concentrate on finding the best solutions for each design situation. (degree directory, 2012). With this in mind, my thoughts towards this definition of a design methodology means that the methodology chosen must reflect and compliment the type of product or outcome which is desired by the designer and the end user.

Design Methods – Design methods are classified as exercises which help designers engage with people, customers, users and the world around them during the design process. (Designing with people, 2012). The methods used can range from brainstorming to user diaries, the best methods to create the desired and expected outcome are used in the drive to create the product and fulfil the design brief. (Design Council, 2012).

Design Tools – Design tools are communication aids used throughout the design process that deal with complex systems. They can be used in conjunction with design methods or help communication by the variety of people involved in all areas of design, from the designer to the stakeholder. (Service Design Tools, 2012).

Team Project

Choosing a Design Methodology

Pugh’s Total Design Method – The team chose to first look at Pugh’s Total Design methodology as it was familiar to us and provided a structure and flow which we had experienced before. As a group we thought having a familiar process would lead to a better working environment and therefore would produce a better outcome through

focus and a collective understanding of the task and the process. However, for this particular product we found the structure too limiting and were convinced this would lead to poor innovation. As a group we felt the structure provided a constant pressure to move to the next stage of the process. We took the decision therefore, to look for a more inclusive design methodology.

Industrial Design Process – Whilst researching we found this diagram showing an industrial design methodology as created by Michael Smith, a design strategist and mechanical engineer. This process appealed to us as it showed the iterative nature of the design process through the use of a clear loop in the process diagram. Collectively, we felt this would remove the pressure to keep moving to the next stage in the design process, as was inherent in Pugh’s process. It can also clearly be seen that the person is in the centre of this process. This appealed to us as a group as commuter headphones, we felt, were a consumer driven product and should therefore be designed around the user. We were positive that this methodology was better than Pugh for this particular product, however we felt there were steps within the process that had been neglected within this process. As a result we continued to search for a refined, inclusive design methodology. (Smith, M., 2012)

Human Experience Creation – The Human Experience Creation took into account the four main areas of design and development; Strategy, Research, Design and Testing and therefore was more refined and thorough than the previous Industrial Design Methodology which we had researched. The methodology de-risks the product and service experience by developing these four areas through the varying stages of the process. This type of thinking is founded on User Centred Design and the notion that experience itself is in customer and user value and not in underlying product and service development. The culture induced through this process is said to allow product innovation to be truly remarkable. For this reason and others, the structure it provided, the inherent iterative nature of the process, the central focus for research, testing and user/customer input, the group decided this would suit the type of interactive, consumer product which we had defined the commuter headphones to be. (Akendi, 2012)

Customer and Product Requirements

SWOT – The team started to define the customer and product requirements by using SWOT to assess the internal capabilities, i.e. the product requirements. We found this method to be good for identifying niches and gaps within the market while also outlining opportunities and threats. This created a clear outline for the product should be introduced within the market and also highlight a target user group. We

found this was a quick and easy task to carry out however, the outcome was not very detailed and further research in some areas was required. As a result we often found we had to repeat ourselves in certain areas to ensure all the correct information was collected.

Having reviewed the use of this method and the outcomes later in the project we found that although it was necessary to repeat some steps, the SWOT analysis which we conducted was the only method to provide us with specific information about the target group. I feel the process of having to conduct further research was due to a possible lack of planning and inexperience, however, this method highlighted areas which may have otherwise been neglected through the use of other methods.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Research Yes No Internal

strengths and weaknesses

PESTEL – Through the use of a SWOT analysis, it became apparent to the team that in order to make a successful design, a more in-depth analysis of the market trends was required, and a PESTEL analysis provided this for us.

The analysis highlighted some key influencial design areas such as environment, legal, and technologies. For the project, the team decided that technologies would be our major area of focus and so the discovery of existing technologies which could be used to improve the design of commuter headphones became a driving factor of our customer and product requirement research. From personal experience we knew this could possibly help solve some of the common areas of failure within a standard pair of headphones.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Research Yes No External

market analysis and

trend identification

Benchmarking – Benchmarking was used to familiarise the team with the products which already existed within the commuter headphone market. We found that this method succeeded in producing a well-rounded overview of the ability of the products which currently exist on the market. From this research we were quickly able to identify some product requirements and supplement the PDS as required.

I found this method to be a great visual aid for helping develop a sense of existing products, their style, trends, and capabilities however, the area of customer

requirements was a factor which seemed to be lacking throughout the use of benchmarking. The group aim for this project was to produce a good concept for a pair of commuter headphones through the use of inclusive design techniques and I felt the exclusion of customer input into the development stage was missing through this method. The team did find that this method could also produce some useful evaluation characteristics. The highlighting of the best products on the market, which are ultimately competitors for the developed commuter headphones, we felt, would act as a good competitor evaluation stage at the end of the process.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Research No No Competitive

reference

Forum Survey – After using benchmarking as a means to identifying product requirements, it became apparent to the team that specific customer requirements and thoughts on existing products were missing from our research. To rectify this issue we carried out a forum survey on popular, dedicated headphone forums.

I found this method to be useful as it provided a direct link to the customer and with the main focus on inclusive design within this project, it thought a direct link would be a critical development aid within the design process. This was also beneficial as the intended customer was providing the required information, meaning the customer was detailing exactly what they expected from the product. I felt this would lead to a ‘customer friendly’ product, one which would receive a good market reception and sales due to the immediate involvement and partial development by the intended customer. As a result I thought that this was potentially the most useful information which we had sourced during the research stage.

The drawback to this method is the amount of different opinions which are gathered during a small time period. At times the information can be repetitive or conflicting and therefore it requires the designer to take a step back and look at the overall picture in order to select the most appropriate information. I feel that this method would be better used in the evaluation stage to evaluate some design concepts of the product and gain consumer feedback on a new product to enter the market.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Research No Yes and No Direct user

input

Design Persona – At the end of customer and product requirements stage the team decided to add an extra method before transferring all of the information gathered in a PDS document. We carried out a design persona in order to eliminate what we deemed to be unnecessary information and also to highlight the most important information and areas of concern which had been identified during research. This

wasn’t a creative method, and did not add to the development of the product in terms of design. It did however help with team management and provided a concise review of what had been achieved during this stage.

I thought this was a useful step as it brought the focus back to what the design brief had outlined. I found it did take time which could have been spent on proceeding to the next stage of the design process, however it allowed for reflection of what information had been gathered and I believe this was invaluable. Reflection allows the designer to take control of the information again and also identify any areas which may have been overlooked during the process to date. This also demonstrates in practical terms why we decided to use the Human Experience Creation design methodology compared to the others which were outlined earlier.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Research,

theory and compilation

Yes No Group reference document

PDS – A first draft of the PDS for the commuter headphones was developed at the end of this stage of the process. It contained all of the appropriate information which had been collected but had areas of information which was missing which the team hoped to complete as the process developed.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Research and

CompilationYes No Main resource

for project development

User Understanding

Empathetic Modelling – The group decided to use empathetic modelling as it provided one of the key elements of inclusive design – an understanding of how the user relates to the product. As a group we used this method to produce a very visual diagram of bottlenecks in the use of the product for those users who may have visual or limb movement impairments.

This method proved to be a good way of achieving an insight which, as a designer, you may not otherwise have witnessed. Without taking steps to put yourself in the shoes of someone with visual impairment you would never understand the difficulties which face these people on a daily basis while using the product. It provided a very deep, practical understanding of the product within a real world context. I believe this method could have been developed further to include other common disabilities which may face the users of this product.

Although this method provided a lot of information which was key to the development of the commuter headphones, the exercise was a simulation and therefore cannot be 100% reliable. However, due to the nature of the results and outcomes achieved I believe it was an essential step in the process and, even without 100% accuracy, the results achieved through this method were more directly used in the design of the product than other method the group tried during the entire process. Compared with the assessing capabilities method it was practical orientated and had almost no theoretical rules to govern the use of the method. This can lead to wrong or corrupt results if the method is not carried out methodically and this can cause problems later. This is one of the reasons the group decided to combine these results with the results obtained from the assessing capabilities method.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Practical and

TheoreticalYes No Valuable

consumer insight

Assessing Capability Levels – While researching inclusive design methods and methodologies we found that the Design Council had outlined a process which involved plotting the desired ability to be able to use a product to its full potential against that which disabled users possess. We found this to be a good method for understanding the theoretical requirements of the user for which we couldn’t test during the empathetic modelling analysis.

This method provided a quick outcome where it was clearly visible in which areas the product needed further development in order to make it a totally inclusive design. We found that the method was also more comprehensive in the areas covered than the empathetic modelling which we had conducted previously.

The most negative point in using this method is the outcome which is entirely based on personal perceptions. It is hard to be objective during the use of the method as it requires the designer to guess the abilities of the end user. Without interaction or comparison with a more practical and user interactive method then the results achieved cannot be reliable. (would make a good evaluation method for final concept design to ensure inclusivity).

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Theoretical Yes Yes Helpful visual

Anthropometric Analysis – To provide the correct sizing for the product the group searched for NASA documents detailing the sizes of the necessary human body parts to produce commuter headphones. This would allow us as designers to produce a product to be placed within a real world context.

During this process I started to develop a sense of size for the product and this allows some evaluation of the ideas for the product. Due to defined sizing you begin to realise that some ideas may work better than others and some may be totally unsuitable. I believe this is a necessary step to ensure the designer reflects again on what has been achieved. The elimination of unsuitable ideas is taking place before conceptual ideas are drawn-up, I believe this allows for more innovative ideas to come to the fore during the creative methods stage of the process.

There is a problem with this method, in that sizes highlighted within the documents may not suit everyone the product is aimed at. I think this is just an aspect of design which cannot be helped or eliminated. A design is never going to be suitable for everyone, however the best result possible should be aimed for.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Research Yes No Valuable, as

good as it can be

KANO Model – As a group we found this method was another suitable way of reducing the requirement suggestions obtained through research within the customer and product requirements stage of the process.

By using this method we were able to highlight a few main features which were highlighted as crucial or highly desireable for the product concept. Through the use of the method it then highlight which of these features were appropriate and which were not.

Asking the correct questions was a key feature of this method and it was very difficult to judge whether the questions we asked to 20 potential customers were successful or not. This obviously meant that the results achieved via the KANO method cannot be trusted and I would perhaps prefer to reference the benchmarking and forum survey as a more reliable suggestion of what features should be included within this design. I do however, believe that KANO could be used as an evaluation checker to ensure the information from previous research was reliable.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Research and

ImplementationYes No Visual and

comparative aid

Creative Design Methods

Brainstorming – From previous experience the group members found this method was a great way of developing a large range of ideas, with no constraints, in a quick and easy way. As a result we decided it was best to start the creative design stage

of our process with this method. We began with a general brainstorm on headphones and then identified a big, common problem area and conducted a brainstorm concentrating souly on solutions for this problem area.

The group found that this was an unbiased way of generating a vast amount of ideas quickly with the aim of generating initial concepts at the end of the method. With this aim in mind we found we were able to build on one another’s ideas, without disguarding ideas at this earlier stage in the process. I felt this was important as it was so early in the concept development stage and any unsuitable ideas would be revealed in the evaluation processes. This was another good point in time to get the group focusing on the same aim again. During the process this would not be the case at times due to tasks being split amongst the group. As with the design persona this was a reflection point during the design process where the group was able to reflect on the information collected up to this point and as a group remind ourselves what the main aims and goals were.

Although everyone has the same understanding of the project at this point, I found that time during the conducting of this method was not spent productively. The brainstorming time limit, which was set by the group, in my opinion was too long as we found ourselves stalling, running out of ideas and staring into space. If I was to repeat this method I would conduct more brainstorms but with smaller time limits or around a minute as I think this could be more productive and produce more innovative ideas.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Idea

GenerationNo Yes Creative, could

be improved

Morphological Chart – After completing a successful brainstorming session the group decided the best use of the generated ideas would be to place them into a morphological chart. We felt this way would ensure all ideas and concepts were used without personal opinion affecting the outcome.

The generation of the morphological chart depends on a function tree which is developed in conjunction with the PDS. This is a positive point within this method as it is likely the concepts generated from this will comply with the PDS as it has been used within the development of that concept. It also highlights the fact that the outcome of this method is random and personal preference is excluded. I believe this is due to the combined use of the PDS and the nature of the use of the chart. For successful use all of the detailed ideas must be included within at least one concept generated using the chart. As this suggests the selection of ideas could be repeated multiple times, and even the chart itself could be repeated several times with different ideas included, to enable the designer to develop, in a structured way, a large variety of concepts within a reasonable period of time.

The chart can combine ideas which you wouldn’t naturally combine. This can have a positive, it could produce something amazing which under normal circumstances would not happen as intuitive selection would disguard the idea. However, this can also cause conflicts between different features within the design. This means natural selection dictates that certain ideas cannot physically fit together, limiting the innovative nature of the design. In such instances it is necessary to use personal discretion to eliminate one feature to enable the design to become viable again.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes No Yes No Structured,

efficient

Scamper – With initial concepts generated as a group we looked towards scamper to provide innovative ideas which could be added or used to replace features within the concepts we had produced.

This method was structured but did not allow the structure to affect the creativity or innovative nature of the method. Due to this the group were able to produce a large number of ideas in a quick and easy manner. What was evident from this creative design method was the ability to generate ideas for specific features or areas of the product. This was also a positive point within the morphological chart, however scamper allowed a greater variety to be produced with the ability and openness to include the application of other technologies within the design. This can be achieved through other methods however it is not a specific focused point in the way it appears in scamper.

This method can be very repetitive. Areas such as adapt and modify tended to produce very similar ideas and results. I also found that the ideas which were produced during this design method were repeating a majority of ideas which were generated through the group brainstorming session. If I were to repeat this method I would suggest having a non-group member complete a task which could be used to produce the scamper outcome. This would incorporate a different view of the product which I feel would have been useful at this late stage during concept develop. I believe a fresh input at this stage would have produced potentially better results.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Idea

GenerationYes and No No Could be

Improved

Force-fitting – As the group were not entirely impressed with the outcomes from scamper, a decision was made to use the force-fitting method to try and generate different, more innovative ideas which could possibly be used in conjunction with the initial concepts generated from the morphological chart.

This method takes basic objects, like a child’s toy screwdriver, and allows the designer to imagine how different features and characteristics could be incorporated into the conceptual product. The group found this a particularly useful characteristic of this method as it eliminated the time spent thinking and staring into space which was evident during the brainstorming section, incorporated existing technology into the concept development in a natural, illusive way, and created random ideas which could be applied quickly in an appropriate way. This method is therefore very successful in enabling ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking and is infinite in the number of ideas, repetitions and objects which can be used or achieved.

Through the number of ideas generated it can then become hard to evaluate and narrow the choice of ideas to a suitable number. It may also produce ideas which may not be suitable or feasible. It is therefore essential that the outcome from this method is evaluated before any ideas progress to being integrated in any initial concepts.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Idea

GenerationNo Yes Highly

Innovative, unused

Evaluation

Controlled Convergence Matrix – The group had six initial concepts after the brainstorming and morphological chart processes. It was a group decision to use the controlled convergence matrix to evaluate the six concepts and minimise the options to which scamper and force-fitting ideas could be added to further develop the generated ideas.

This matrix evaluation allowed for comparison between the developed concepts and an existing product which was already being sold on the consumer market, this was the DATUM which appears in the table. This is useful as it allows a detailed comparison of the product against its main competitors from an early stage in the process. This allows for the development of a competitive product with a clear market advantage from the outset. Performance and other important features can then be adjusted and improved in order to improve the appeal of the product.

The method can involve a lot of personal opinion during the process of completing the table. It is the designer who decides whether the concept performs better, worse, or the same as the chosen DATUM product. Therefore each designer will have a different opinion and outcomes will therefore be different. As we group we tried to minimise this by discussing each choice as a group. This added time to the process and I believe the outcome would have been improved if a focus group of potential users had been asked to compare each concept with the existing DATUM product. The outcome would have been more reliable as someone out-with the

group had completed it and the result would also imply what your target market thought of the product at an early stage. At this early stage changes can then be made if necessary to improve areas highlighted by the focus group.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Practical

ComparisonYes Quicker than

weighting and rating

Could be improved

Weighting and Rating Matrix – The group thought the weighting and rating matrix provided a more impartial outcome and this is why we decided it would be better if we used this method to choose the final concept. Each of the three concepts selected from the controlled convergence matrix had been developed and updated. Each of the improved concepts were then judged against criteria selected from the PDS.

I found that this evaluation approach was more logical and mathematical. Each criteria is assigned with a rating, discussed and approved by the team, and each concept is rated on how well it fulfils that criteria. This provided a more impartial output than that produced by the controlled convergence matrix and, for me, was more logical as the chosen concept would finally be judged and adjusted on how well it fulfilled the PDS criteria. Therefore, for me, it made more sense to evaluate the created concepts against the PDS criteria as it would save time and produce a more focused outcome. It also seemed to incorporate more of the users’ preferences, through the use of PDS criteria taken from research for the customer and product requirement stage, and contributed to a more inclusive design approach.

Due to the more structured nature of the method of producing a weighting and rating matrix the time taken to complete this method was much longer. There was also a need to keep referring to the PDS to ensure the correct interpretation of the criteria was being taken. However I believe this is a necessary step as the outcome is much more valuable than what was produced from the controlled convergence matrix. In my opinion there was a strong correlation between the outcome from this evaluation method and the next stages of the process, whereas the controlled convergence matrix just selects a concept, the weighting and rating matrix highlights areas which could still be improved and suggests the direction the designer might take, i.e. move to the next development stages or revisit earlier stages and repeat to produce more ideas.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Practical

ComparisonYes No More impartial

Dot Sticking – Having trialled dot sticking as an evaluation method during a class activity the group decided the method would be better suited to evaluating the random, innovative ideas which were generated through scamper and force-fitting. This would then give us the objective of finding innovative ideas which could be easily implemented into any of the three concepts and we would not be relying on personal opinion to select the final design which should be further developed for production.

This was a quick and easy to use evaluation method when compared to the matrix methods discussed above. However, the outcome produced by this method is not as substancial as the others and care must be taken is using the method in a constructive and value adding manner to ensure it adds significant input to the project. The process allowed for more creativity development within concept evaluation. Unlike the other methods which were simply evaluating against set criteria the way in which we used this method allows the designer to evaluate what they think of certain areas of the proposed design and allows them to choose innovative ideas in order to address the areas of concern. This uses the concept of continuous development to ensure the best solution is chosen for production.

With this method there is however a willingness to ‘follow the crowd’ due to the personal opinion and thoughts involved in choosing and evaluating the ideas. With the lack of criteria to evaluate against the selection choice is entirely based upon the thoughts of the individual. This can result in the pushing through of the most popular ideas regardless of their suitable for the task.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Practical and

TheoryNo Yes Personal

opinion

Design for Safety and Reliability

FMEA – FMEA was used to highlight safety and reliability issues within the chosen concept design. The table which was produced by the group provided a good overview of problems which may occur when the product is being utilised by its intended user.

I found this method to be surprised creative and innovative. The highlighting of problems within the design and research into why this might happen created some background knowledge and lead to a freedom of suggested resolutions. There were no restrictions, structure or rules to the creation of ideas in order to solve safety and reliability issues and this resulted in the surprisingly creative nature of the method. The table also highlighted areas which I believe would otherwise be neglected and from the experience of this project were neglected during the evaluation process.

The completion of the FMEA table was complicated as no member of the group understood in detail, the processes or situations during manufacture which may lead to the occurrence of some of these issues. I feel that a more successful outcome would be achieved if experts in some of the areas, including identifying current detection/prevention, were able to advise on techniques and processes in order to give a more informed input into the history of processing and checking of the product. We found that as a group task we spent a large amount of time discuss and disagreeing over what information should be placed in the table. For this reason we believe one member of the team should complete this task with an expert focus group. This would provide the opportunity to complete the task more quickly and with more correct and precise detail.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes and No Theory No No Top-level

overview

Root Cause Analysis – Whilst carrying out research the group identified one particular problem area – the connection between the jack and the wire constantly breaking. As this was such a big problem and constituted an important area of development for us, we carried out a root cause analysis into this area to try and identify what was causing this problem in order to create a more thoughtful and successful solution to the problem.

This method produced a very thorough overview of one particular problem within the product. I feel it would be beneficial to the design process if every problem listed within the FMEA chart was analysed with this level of detail. It outlined many areas and issues that would never have otherwise come to the attention of the designer. I also believe a more in-depth understanding of what is happening to cause a problem can lead to better and more thoughtful solutions.

Due to the level of detail required and the team’s lack of expert knowledge in areas such as machines and manpower this analysis took a long time to complete. I also believe that although we found the outcome useful, the outcome could have been much improved if experts in each field, (methods, manpower, measurement, machines, environment and materials), had collaborated in order to produce the detailed analysis required for this problem. I believe this would produce a more reliable, knowledgeable and accurate outcome which would prove to be more beneficial to the project.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Research and

TheoryYes No Opportunity to

be improved

Design for Manufacture and Assembly

Value Analysis – As the group reached this point in the design process we had no thought about manufacturing issues in any detail. On reflection this should not be the case, manufacturing should form thoughts to influence design and form a key part of the PDS. Value analysis therefore developed thoughts of manufacture and assembly which were lacking within the group project.

We found the output, although in the form of a simple table, was a visual and easy way to outline required components. It also highlighted another area in which the group had not given a large amount of thought to, the cost of the product to manufacture and the cost of the components themselves. As a group we thought another way of using this method would be to use it as a comparison between the concept and other products on the market. In this case it indicates how well the concept will perform against competitors through cost and will also add an evaluation stage. We thought this would be beneficial as this allows for continuous improvement of the concept throughout the design process.

However, due to a lack of experience and having never used this method before, finding the correct costings to place in the table was difficult, as a result it took a long period of time to complete this method successfully. On a few occasions the outcome was not successful as errors were incurred within the information provided. This meant we found ourselves repeating steps which we thought had already been completed.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Research and

TheoryYes No Valuable

Information

Value Engineering – As a group we felt we had achieved a good project output up to this point during the design process. We feel we had innovative and creative ideas to solve what we had deemed to be the main issues within the current commuter headphone market. We did however struggle with the idea of how to make some of our ideas reality. We found this to be a very effective method which we had not used before and felt it produced a high quality and reliable outcome in comparison to methods or ideas we had previously tried.

We therefore felt this method ensured the most robust design was achieved and found it to be very thought provoking in nature as it encouraged thinking on areas which we had never considered to be key factors before. There was however a feeling that the outcome could have been improved if some expert advice had been sought in order to aid understanding and ensure the information provided in the outcome was reliable.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Idea

GenerationNo Quicker than

value analysisCould have

been improved

DFMA –

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeYes Research and

ImplementationYes No Good visual

aid for what had been achieved

through VA and VE

Robust Design

End of Life Product Strategy

DFE Guidelines – The team used this method to try to create an overview of what the necessary steps may be, for the product as a whole, at the end of its life cycle. This was generally an area which, until this point in the project was reached, had not been given any thought. In reflection this element should have been another key consideration throughout the design process.

We found that this method was ‘open to innovation’. No rigid rules, and a variety of options to consider allowed for freedom and flow of the process. As a group, we realised that this particular design method is very much driven by goals. As a result this should mean that any issue, surrounding the environment, within the product should be solved.

On reflection I feel the group may not have established the correct goals to achieve the necessary output. By looking at the product as an entity resulted in a general overview. I believe each component needed to be considered in the same way. With the outcome we did achieve, we found that results always seemed to be quite similar, especially in the areas of waste reduction and emission reduction, and it took a long time to achieve these.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Idea

Generation and Research

Yes No Repetitive, Points for PDS

Life-cycle Analysis – After reaching a result with the Design for Environment method, the group decided that it would be beneficial at this point to produce a life-cycle analysis as a summary or overview of the findings.

This method was not taken straight from the findings of the Design for Environment guidelines, however it was achieved by piecing together points of information from

different sections of the guidelines to give a broader overview. These two methods complement one another and we felt it was beneficial in being able to provide a different view on the product.

We came to the conclusion that this method was possibly a subsection of the Design for Environment guidelines instead of a design method which could be used on its own. The outcomes achieved are both very similar, however they make the most sense when used together to create a vision for the product disposal. Our last thought was that the methods could be individually completed to try to include more detail and avoid producing a general overview.

Group Practical Logical Quick OutcomeNo Idea

Generation and Research

Yes No Repetitive, Visual

Project Management

Team meetings – At the beginning of the project the group decided the best way to proceed was to have weekly face-to-face meetings where we could discuss what needed to be done and also carry-out any groups tasks.

We found this to be effective as each team member made it to every meeting. If this had not been the case I can see that there would have been a need for greater communication. We did however take notes on what had been decided at every meeting and a group member was nominated to produce a ‘to-do list’ after each meeting and share this with the group via email.

Information sharing – The sharing of information was the key issue for the group throughout this project. The type of information shared ranged from sketches to whole documents dedicated to one particular stage of the process. To help the team manage this effectively we made a group decision to use a shared folder on Dropbox. This meant all of the information required for the project would be in one place, which was easily accessible to all team members at any time.

We found this to be the best way to share information. From previous experience email had been the main way of sharing information and we found that this had always been problematic. With email documents tended to get lost, or members of the group found they never received them. By using Dropbox we then had a permanent and secure holding facility, specifically for this project.

The main issue with this technology was size limitation. We found ourselves producing a large amount of work, which utilised a lot of the space allowed within this storage facility. As a result we found ourselves sharing files by email also. This added some slight confusion over the accessibility of files. A suggestion to be considered next time would be to use another technology such as a cloud drive, or

Google documents, as well as Dropbox to ensure there is enough space for all the group documents produced.

Design tools – As a group we made a conscious decision not to utilise any design tools to help with the design process. Although this would have provided better results within some methods we felt that we needed to experience conducting the method ourselves to understand how it worked and what its intended outcome would be. As a result we hope to have a better understanding of some methods for use in another project and feel it would be easier to incorporate some online design tools.

Management tools – Although we did not use a formal gantt chart to schedule a work plan for the project we did list the tasks to be done and the required outcome for each stage of the project. We felt a gantt chart would not have been fully utilised as dates and times for completion of different sections would constantly be changing. We felt by using lists we could achieve the same level of project management and decide on dates of completion independently. We also used other management tools such as a project brief to ensure each team member had a full understanding of the aims of the project and this was included in a simple document which every group member could refer to at any time.

Communication technology – As it was viable for the group to meet face-to-face we did not feel the need to incorporate the use of skype or another form of communication aid. Communication between group members was kept to email and within the group meetings and we feel this worked effectively as we incurred very little problems due to communication during the project.

Conclusion

References

[1] - http://www.knowthis.com/principles-of-marketing-tutorials/product-decisions/product-features-and-psychological-benefits/ - accessed 6th February 2012

[2] - Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 1969 (p.129 of 1981 MIT press 2nd edition)

[3] - http://www.pwc.com/us/en/global-best-practices/process-framework.jhtml - accessed 7th February 2012

[4] - http://degreedirectory.org/articles/What_is_Design_Methodology.html - accessed 13th April 2012

[5] - http://designingwithpeople.rca.ac.uk/methods - accessed 13th April 2012

[6] - http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-design/how-designers-work/design-methods/ - accessed 13th April 2012

[7] - http://www.servicedesigntools.org/ - accessed 14th April 2012

[8] - http://mjsdsgn.com/process/ - accessed 14th April 2012

[9] - http://www.akendi.co.uk/end-to-end-experience-design-process/experience-thinking.php - accessed 15th April 2012

Appendix 1 – Human Experience Creation Methodology

Appendix 2 – PDS

Product Development - Team 10Product Design Specification Headphones – Non-wirelessVersion 6

1. Performance 1.1 The product should be durable to withstand repetitive daily and constant use1.2 The product must have a high robustness in quality to withstand the everyday stress1.3 It is expected that the product is suitable for commuters who use a form of public transport

5 days per week for 76 minutes every day.1.4 The product must provide a secure connection with the portable music player

1.5 All material used must be fully functional within a temperature range of -30 oC - +40 oC. 1.6 The product should be capable of holding up to 560 g.1.7 The product must be fully functional for a minimum of 5 years.1.8 The product should be the correct shape to make the user feel comfortable during use.1.9 The product should be easy for the costumer to carry when not in use.

2. Aesthetics 2.1 The product’s design should be aesthetically pleasing so should utilise smooth curved

shapes and a colour scheme which would be perceived as attractive by a large percentage of the public

2.2 The colours should fit in with current fashion trends.2.3 The colours used should be subtle and compliment the traditional office worker/commuter

dress code.2.4 There should be more than one colour to offer alternatives to the user.2.5 The product must look natural but also stand out from the rest of the competition to

encourage people to use the product. Thus it means using earthly and natural colours to appeal to 75% of people.

2.6 Must provide the most comfortable resting head position for the user.

3. Standards specifications 3.1 The product must comply with all relevant British Safety Standards.3.2 As the product is used in conjunction with a human ear then significant noise levels capable

of causing severing hearing damage should be avoided, achievable noise levels should be no louder than 85dB

3.3 There should be no sharp edges.3.4 There should be no danger of trapping the users’ fingers in any moving parts which may be

incorporated in the design.3.5 Must meet safety standard set out in BSI Catalogue under Ergonomics 13.1803.6 Must meet safety standard set out in BSI Catalogue under Fire Protection 13.220.

4. Ergonomics 4.1 The product should be ergonomically designed for the user so that the positioning around

the ear is as comfortable as possible4.2 The product should be ergonomically designed for the user so that they are as comfortable

as possible

4.3 Sharp edges will not be included in the design of this product to comply with British Safety Standards.

4.4 The wire length of the product, from waist level must be a suitable length to give a position during use which is suited to the majority of the public – around 330mm.

4.5 The design of the earphones should be based on the optimal size and curvature of the ear to ensure maximum comfort and sound levels are produced during the use of the product. Over ear earphones should measure _. In-ear earphones should measure _.

5. Materials

5.1 The product should be made from an eco-friendly material which is easy to clean, durable and waterproof to suit the environment which it may be used

5.2 The product should not contain animal leather as some people may have moral objections to this. Microfibers are available alternative to provide the same look but without offending users.

5.3 Fabric used in the product must be easily removed from the frame structure of the product and easily cleaned for hygiene reasons.

5.4 Any metallic materials, PVC or polythene are ideal materials for this product as they have a smooth surfaces for easy cleaning, appropriate robust properties, water resistant and offer a long life cycle. They don’t require much maintenance, are easily coloured and moulded and are relativity easily recycled.

5.5 The material ideally should have resistance to water, salt, dust, wind, ice, rocks, common solvents, oil, gasoline and wind speeds up to 50 mph.

5.6 Any material required to be water resistant and breathable must withstand 9.8kPa of pressure (over 1,000 millilitres of water) without leaking.

6. Product Lifespan 6.1 The product should be fully functional for a minimum of 5 years.6.2 Spare parts will be available for as long as the product is in production plus 10 years.

7. Legal 7.1 The product must conform to all safety standards (3.1…)

8. Safety 8.1 As the product is used in conjunction with a human ear then significant noise levels capable

of causing severing hearing damage should be avoided, achievable noise levels should be no louder than 85dB

8.2 Sharp corners are to be avoided to minimise the risk to users.8.3 There should be no danger of trapping the users’ fingers any moving parts which may be

used within the product and they should be clearly marked and guarded where possible.8.4 Any moving parts should not pose a hazard to the user.8.5 The padding should provide comfort and ergonomic fit when the product is in use.

9. Testing 9.1 The parts of the headphones being manufactured or purchased from another company will

undergo an inspection to ensure quality control. 1 in every 20 items will be inspected. 9.2 Prototypes of the headphones must meet the product design specification and will be tested.

10. Patents 10.1 The product must not infringe upon any current patents.

11. Quality/ reliability

11.1 The product’s construction should be of a high quality to ensure customer satisfaction11.2 The product should be very reliable as it will be under constant strain through daily use11.3 All materials must meet the standards required (see standard specifications - 3)11.4 The product must adhere to British Safety standards as it is being used by consumers in

public areas/transport. 11.5 The product must be suitable for batch production.11.6 It must have a maximum 5% failure rate over service life.

11.7 The dimensions of the specified parts must fall within 2 %− ¿+¿ ¿ ¿ to pass all quality control

checks to ensure good operation and a high quality finish for the product.

12. Competition 12.1 The product needs to out-perform competition through performance and aesthetics.12.2 The product should be cheaper and more widely available than the competitiors.

13. Maintenance 13.1 Parts which may need maintenance should be easily accessible13.2 The material should be waterproof so it is easy to maintain( see materials section, 5.6).13.3 The product is to require no regular servicing of maintenance except routine cleaning of

material and surfaces.13.4 The metallic part of the headphones must have a suitable finish for easy cleaning and

removal of dust/water.

14. Weight (Only concerning overall weight of the product) 14.1 The product should be lightweight – ideally no heavier than 1.62 ounces.14.2 This product should use latest technology if possible to reduce weight.

15. Market Constraints 15.1 The product must be reliable.15.2 The product must be comfortable for the user.15.3 The product should be cheaper than our main competition.15.4 The product must be based on neutral colours to suit at least 75% of the people who will use

the product.

16. Size 16.1 The product should be small enough to fit inside the pocket of a suit jacket, which is around

0.2 x 3.4 x 6.5 inches.16.2 The product should be foldable so the overall size reduces when required.

17. Customer 17.1 To provide customer satisfaction, the headphones should provide good ergonomic fit for the ears, and also the head if a headband is used within the design, be durable for daily use, especially around the area of the jack and provide tangle free wire for ease of use.

18. Product Cost 18.1 The cost of the product should be kept to a minimum18.2 The cost of the product should ideally be significantly less than our competitions but should

not compromise the quality and reliability of the product18.3 The cost of packaging and shipping should be no more than 15% of the manufacturing cost.

19. Life in Service

19.1 Must be fully functional and last for a minimum of 5 years, but if economically viable, a 7 years life in service would be preferred.

19.2 While the product is in service, it must maintain a higher performance than its nearest competitor to fulfil its competitive edge.

20. Quantity 20.1 This product must be suitable for mass production.

21. Documentation 21.1 A detailed user manual and maintenance instructions should be included.21.2 It should be simple and relatively easy to follow.21.3 Alternative documentation should be available on request, such as in coloured paper for

dyslexic users and written British Sign Language for deaf sign language users.21.4 User manual and maintenance instruction should be up on the company’s website.

22. Environment 22.1 The pollution level must be minimised during manufacturing.22.2 The product must fit in with its surroundings and become illusive22.3 Corrosion resistance may be considered by the use of special materials or surface protection

methods.22.4 The unit should perform and not be damaged by temperatures in the range of -30oC to

+40oC.22.5 Materials must be recyclable at the end of the product’s life.22.6 The product must be stain-proof as a wide range of chemicals may be required for cleaning

and it shouldn’t degrade the material used.22.7 Chemicals must provide no effect on the materials used within the product.

23. Packing 23.1 Must reduce packaging of the product to a minimum to eliminate waste and pollution.23.2 The size of the box that the product will go into should be that a total number of boxes for

transport in a typical sized heavy truck can minimally carry. A typical size of the trailer (body) on the heavy truck is 2.64m (height) by 2.54 (width) and 13.5 (length).

23.3 The parts must be safe enough to transport (wrapping may be essential) so it will not harm the people who transport the packages.

23.4 If possible, use recycled material for the packaging to help reduce the environmental footprint of the product.

24. Manufacturing Facility 24.1 Machined parts must come in standardised sizes to ensure quick and easy manufacturing time.24.2 Simple assembly must be included to reduce the length of time between completion and the product being used in its environment.24.3 Common assembly parts should be used if possible to reduce price and time.

25. Disposal 25.1 After the products lifecycle the product should be easily disposable25.2 The materials used should be easily recyclable where possible

26. Time Scale 26.1 Production to start nine months from specification date

27. Target Cost 27.1 must consider the market area this product is being designed for. The product will be mass produced and therefore the target cost should be set relative to this.27.2 The target cost for this product should be a maximum of £80.

Specification Rationale

1.3 According to thismoney.co.uk the average commute in London during 2011 was a total of around 38 minutes each way every day. This equates to 200 hours a year commuting to and from work. The headphones must therefore be substancially durable and robust to cope well with this amount of repetitive and daily use.

1.5 As the product will be used on a commuting journey it is likely that the user will be exposed to the environment and climate which surrounds them during their wait on arriving transport. This means the product will have to cope with a temperature range of -30 oC - +40 oC as this is the extreme temperature range for the west of Scotland as stated by http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ws/print.html

1.6 The product will be used with a variety of portable music devices and to ensure the wire connecting to the music device is strong enough and will not break during constant use then the wire must be capable of holding more than the weight of the heaviest portable music device. We believe the heaviest portable music device the headphones will come into contact with is the iPhone. The weight of the iPhone, as stated by http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html, is 140g. The product must be capable of holding this weight x4 to allow for safety margins. The product must therefore be able to hold 560g.

1.9 As a commuter product the ability to store the product when not in use is a big selling point for customers.

2.5 The colour must be appealing to a large majority of the target consumer market.

3. Not complying with this section of the PDS may result in a ban on selling the product to the public.

3.2 The noise comparison chart composed by http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html, shows decibel levels and the levels of noise which is associated with them. By studying this table we have established that the level above which noise becomes uncomfortable is 85dB. The noise level achievable through the headphones should therefore not be more than this.

3.6 The product is being used whilst in public areas and therefore cannot be flammable.

4.4 To ensure the wire length of the product is suitable for the 95 th percentile of the population the wire must be no shorter than 330mm. This is the male, 95th percentile sitting height value as stated by http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm#_3.2_GENERAL_ANTHROPOMETRICS.

5.2 The use of animal leather may cause offence, using animal based materials should be avoided to make the product appealing to a majority of people.

5.5 This data is based on information gathered from the met office and is based on weather conditions in Scotland.

5.6 A material can only be classified as waterproof is certain conditions are met, as stated by http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/04/waterproof-ratings-demystified/, this is necessary to ensure the product can be used outdoors without failure.

6.1 The 5 year lifespan was chosen to ensure the product was developed with longevity in mind as this is a customer requirement.

10.1 Infringements on patents will incur law suits and delay/stop production.

13.1 If the product is not easy to clean and maintain then buyers will ultimately be put-off buying the product through fear of failure within months and the cost of replacement.

13.4 For a high quality finish and to provide customer satisfaction for the high price which they will pay for the product then the metallic and plastic components on the headphones must have a suitable surface finish to prevent corrosion, scratching etc.

14.1 Some simple headphones on the market, which can be competitors, as advertised at http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/17589408/JVC-HA-L50-Foldable-Light-Weight-Stereo-Headphones-for-iPod-MP3-Black/Product.html, are lightweight headphones weighing only 1.62 ounces. Our product should weigh no more than this to give a competitive advantage within the market.

16.1 The majority of suit jackets have a pocket which is big enough to carry a checkbook sized wallet. This is the biggest item which can be placed in a suit pocket so the product cannot be bigger when folded or stored. As stated by http://www.amazon.com/Hartmann-Capital-Leather-Checkbook-Wallet/dp/B00011SUS2, this is an average checkbook wallet size. The product must fit in this space envelope when completed.

20.1 The product is intended for public use so large quantities will be required.

22.4 The highest temperature recorded in Glasgow is 31.2 oC and the lowest is -19 oC. However the user may wish to use the product while commuting on a business trip overseas so the product needs to withstand a greater heat range and cope with Britain’s changing weather conditions.

25.1 The product must not cause any further damage to the environment. Damage which is caused must be kept to a minimum.

27.1 The product must appeal to the target customer group and the price should correlate to the acquired market research.

Appendix 3 – Comparison Table – Customer and Product Requirements Methods

Appendix 4 – KANO Model

Commuter Headphones Questionaire

As a commuter, what is the main form of transportation you use?

How many hours per week do you think you listen to music whilst commuting?

How much are you willing to spend on a pair of headphones?

If the product doesn’t provide padding, how do you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product doesn’t provide a thick, durable wire how do you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product provided a screw-in jack, how would you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product doesn’t provide noise cancellation, how do you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product provides in-line volume control, how do you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way

• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product provides a neckband, how do you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product provides over-ear earphones, how do you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product provided a woven cable, how would you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

If the product provided good extraneous noise cancellation, how would you feel?• I like it that way• It must be that way• I am neutral• I can live with it that way• I dislike it that way

Appendix 5 – Comparison Table – User Understanding Methods

Appendix 6 – SCAMPER

Appendix 7 – Force Fitting

Appendix 8 – Comparison Table – Creative Design Methods

Appendix 9 – Comparison Table – Evaluation Methods

Appendix 10 – Comparison Table – Design for Safety and Reliability

Appendix 11 – Value Engineering

Value Engineering

Earphone Casings Front/Back:

Implement higher strength plastics to better protect delicate components.

Implement higher quality plastics to increase comfort for user. Alter shape of earphones to allow for easier manipulation (inclusive

design).Wire:

Improve flexibility. Combine with other components to reduce individual seals/connections. Coil wire to prevent tangling

Coil/Magnet/Diaphragm

Use higher quality diaphragm material to improve sound quality. Use larger magnet to increase power of audio signal. Reduce size of parts to reduce weight. Increase size of parts to increase weight and create robust feel.

Jack

Locking system to device. Thicker insulation/cover to protect internals. Increase flexibility at wire/jack connection.

Headband

Incorporate gripping material to improve the fit to users head Create moveable joins in headband to allow for a more effective fit Include rain/weather cover to increase robustness

Unique selling points/Secondary Functions

Addition of glow in the dark material to headband part to make user visible (inclusive design)

Incorporation of external speakers to allow sharing of music

Appendix 12 – Comparison Table – Design for Manufacture and Assembly

Appendix 13 – Robust Design Experiment

Appendix 14 – Comparison Table – End of Life Product Strategy