I have worked (and am working) in product design consultancies. For those of you unfamiliar with the general setup, they tend to be made up of Researchers, Industrial Designers, and Mechanical Engineers. These consultancies are responsible for the design of many many consumer, industrial and medical products (Check out Farm, Altitude, IDEO, and Design Continuum to see examples).
Something I have come to realize is that human factors does not seem to get the use it deserves. This is not to say it is completely ignored; some Researchers and Industrial Designers have some exposure to human factors. They will use height charts, design for 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male, and other general best-practices. My gripe is that there are so many studies (See HFES journal, and/or ergonomics in design) containing mounds of data regarding posture, grip force, materials handling capacity, etc. that just get ignored.
I am fully aware that every designer cannot get another degree in human factors, but can d-schools not focus more on it in their curriculum? I had a colleague who got his ID degree from Va Tech, and didn't even know who Karl Kroemer was! (I am sure that most if not all of you reading this don't know either, but if you are interested in Human Factors he is an excellent place to start)
-Chris Loughnane
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Disrupting "waste by design"
The blender and toaster. You will find them in almost any home, and I venture to say that the main reason any of them get thrown away is that the appearance becomes dingy, or simply doesn't match with the owner's new kitchen. Why not design a line of these appliances with interchangable shells of different colors, finishes, and textures? Think of the recycling opportunities!
The cop out is "companies are built around selling completely new devices, so 'reusable' doesn't mesh well". I wonder, has anyone looked deeper than this refrain? Perhaps consumers (ugh) would buy 3 or more of these decorative shells ($$) in the same timespan in which they would have suffered with their old, unisghtly device before throwing it away? That would surely offset the cost.
The first company to incorporate such a model into their business would surely gain the much sought after disruptive advantage
The cop out is "companies are built around selling completely new devices, so 'reusable' doesn't mesh well". I wonder, has anyone looked deeper than this refrain? Perhaps consumers (ugh) would buy 3 or more of these decorative shells ($$) in the same timespan in which they would have suffered with their old, unisghtly device before throwing it away? That would surely offset the cost.
The first company to incorporate such a model into their business would surely gain the much sought after disruptive advantage
Labels:
design,
Sustainable
Friday, June 20, 2008
Synergy of design for disassembly and shock
One of the more popular refrains of the sustainable design movement is to "design for disassembly". The (correct) theory being that if a part is too difficult to take apart, and is made of more than one materials (like nearly all products are), it will not be recycled. I am a big proponent of designing for disassembly, but have recently come across a problem...shock.
Just think of all of the different products you use in your life that can experience shock (from dropping?) on a regular basis...
TV Remote
Any other remote control for that matter
Xbox controller
Cordless Phone
Hair Dryer
Calculator (I'm a nerd)
every children's toy ever made (it seems)
Cell phones
Whether dueit is unscrewing half a dozen screws on the small remote or trying to crack open the ultrasonic weld on your cell phone, the disassembly (and consequently recycling) of these products can be prohibitively labor intensive.
We are better than this. I am convinced that it is doable to concot some clever geometry (a variation on the good old snap latch) that enables a device to withstand necessary shock while remaining easily disassembled. It is not a tough balance to strike, it is just that we are used to seeing things fastened with a safety margin of roughly 2 gazillion. We can afford to bring that down.
My remote control has 6 screws keeping the two halves together. These screws assure that the plastic shell will crack from shock before it pops in half. However, it is overkill. This small device doesn't need 6 screws. Think critically, what kind of shock is a remote control going to encounter? It will encounter point forces along its body, but what is the likelihood of it striking in such a fashion that the two halves of the remote attempt to rotate about each other like the hands of a clock? Furthermore, even if this unlikely even happens, surely the forces can't be much greater than 20 lbs (an estimation, but I feel comfortable with it. Slap an accelerometer on your remote if you don't). The point I'm driving at is that with some cleverly designed snaps, a remote control could withstand the forces it encounters in its lifetime while still being able to be twisted apart in one motion at its end-of-life.
So what is the takeaway here? Fasteners and ultrasonic welding are a cop-out. Be clever.
Just think of all of the different products you use in your life that can experience shock (from dropping?) on a regular basis...
TV Remote
Any other remote control for that matter
Xbox controller
Cordless Phone
Hair Dryer
Calculator (I'm a nerd)
every children's toy ever made (it seems)
Cell phones
Whether dueit is unscrewing half a dozen screws on the small remote or trying to crack open the ultrasonic weld on your cell phone, the disassembly (and consequently recycling) of these products can be prohibitively labor intensive.
We are better than this. I am convinced that it is doable to concot some clever geometry (a variation on the good old snap latch) that enables a device to withstand necessary shock while remaining easily disassembled. It is not a tough balance to strike, it is just that we are used to seeing things fastened with a safety margin of roughly 2 gazillion. We can afford to bring that down.
My remote control has 6 screws keeping the two halves together. These screws assure that the plastic shell will crack from shock before it pops in half. However, it is overkill. This small device doesn't need 6 screws. Think critically, what kind of shock is a remote control going to encounter? It will encounter point forces along its body, but what is the likelihood of it striking in such a fashion that the two halves of the remote attempt to rotate about each other like the hands of a clock? Furthermore, even if this unlikely even happens, surely the forces can't be much greater than 20 lbs (an estimation, but I feel comfortable with it. Slap an accelerometer on your remote if you don't). The point I'm driving at is that with some cleverly designed snaps, a remote control could withstand the forces it encounters in its lifetime while still being able to be twisted apart in one motion at its end-of-life.
So what is the takeaway here? Fasteners and ultrasonic welding are a cop-out. Be clever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
