Product Development - Reflective Report

A Reflective Report on the
Design Process
Commuter Headphones Project (DM306)
4/24/2012
PDE 200948192 kerrie.noble@strath.ac.uk
Kerrie 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 severalsteps 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
successfuldesign outcome.
The philosophy, or thinking process,can vary from person to person but the outcome should be
the same. A successfulproduct 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 Outcome
No 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.
No 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.
Yes 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.
Yes 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.
Yes 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.
Yes Research and
Compilation
Yes 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.
Yes Practical and
Theoretical
Yes 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).
Yes 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.
No 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.
Yes and No Research and
Implementation
Yes 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.
Yes Idea
Generation
No 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.
Yes 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.
Yes and No Idea
Generation
Yes 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.
Yes Idea
Generation
No 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.
Yes Practical
Comparison
Yes 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.
Yes Practical
Comparison
Yes 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.
Yes and No Practical and
Theory
No 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.
Yes 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.
No Research and
Theory
Yes 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.
No Research and
Theory
Yes 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.
Yes Idea
Generation
No Quicker than
value analysis
Could have
been improved

DFMA –
Yes Research and
Implementation
Yes 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.
No 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.
No 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 10
Product Design Specification
Headphones – Non-wireless
Version 6
1. Performance
1.1 The product should be durable to withstand repetitive daily and constant use
1.2 The product must have a high robustness in quality to withstand the everyday stress
1.3 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 -30oC - +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 13.180
3.6 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 possible
4.2 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 lifecycle. 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 minimisethe 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 satisfaction
11.2 The product should be very reliable as it will be under constant strain through daily use
11.3 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 accessible
13.2 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 minimum
18.2 The cost of the product should ideally be significantly less than our competitions but should
not compromise the quality and reliability of the product
18.3 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 illusive
22.3 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 lifecyclethe product should be easily disposable
25.2 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 Accordingto thismoney.co.ukthe average commute inLondonduring2011 was a total of
around38 minuteseachwayeveryday. Thisequatesto200 hours a yearcommutingto andfrom
work. The headphonesmusttherefore be substanciallydurable androbusttocope well withthis
amountof repetitive anddailyuse.
1.5 As the productwill be usedona commutingjourneyitislikelythatthe userwill be exposedto
the environmentandclimate whichsurroundsthemduringtheirwaitonarrivingtransport. This
meansthe productwill have tocope witha temperature range of -30oC- +40 oC as thisisthe
extreme temperaturerange forthe westof Scotlandas statedby
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ws/print.html
1.6 The productwill be usedwithavarietyof portable musicdevicesandtoensure the wire
connectingtothe musicdevice isstrongenoughandwill notbreakduringconstantuse thenthe
wire mustbe capable of holdingmore thanthe weightof the heaviest portable musicdevice. We
believethe heaviestportable musicdevice the headphoneswill come intocontactwithisthe
iPhone. The weightof the iPhone,asstatedby http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html,is140g.
The product mustbe capable of holdingthisweightx4to allow forsafetymargins. The product
musttherefore be able tohold560g.
1.9 As a commuterproductthe abilitytostore the productwhennotin use isa big sellingpointfor
customers.
2.5 The colourmustbe appealingtoalarge majorityof the targetconsumermarket.
3. Not complyingwiththissectionof the PDSmayresultina ban on sellingthe producttothe public.
3.2 The noise comparisonchartcomposedby
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html,showsdecibellevelsandthe levelsof
noise whichisassociatedwiththem. Bystudyingthistable we have establishedthatthe level above
whichnoise becomesuncomfortable is85dB. The noise levelachievablethroughthe headphones
shouldtherefore notbe more thanthis.
3.6 The productis beingusedwhilstinpublicareasandtherefore cannotbe flammable.
4.4 To ensure the wire lengthof the productissuitable forthe 95th
percentileof the populationthe
wire mustbe no shorterthan 330mm. Thisis the male,95th
percentile sittingheightvalue asstated
by http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm#_3.2_GENERAL_ANTHROPOMETRICS.
5.2 The use of animal leathermaycause offence,usinganimalbasedmaterialsshouldbe avoidedto
make the product appealingtoamajorityof people.
5.5 Thisdata is basedoninformationgatheredfromthe metoffice andisbasedonweather
conditionsinScotland.

5.6 A material canonlybe classifiedaswaterproof iscertainconditionsare met,asstatedby
http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/04/waterproof-ratings-demystified/, thisisnecessaryto
ensure the productcan be usedoutdoorswithoutfailure.
6.1 The 5 year lifespanwaschosentoensure the productwasdevelopedwithlongevityinmindas
thisisa customerrequirement.
10.1 Infringementsonpatentswill incurlaw suitsanddelay/stopproduction.
13.1 If the productis not easyto cleanandmaintainthenbuyerswill ultimatelybe put-off buyingthe
productthrough fearof failure withinmonthsandthe costof replacement.
13.4 For a highqualityfinishandtoprovide customersatisfactionforthe highprice whichtheywill
pay forthe productthenthe metallicandplasticcomponentsonthe headphonesmusthave a
suitable surface finishtopreventcorrosion,scratchingetc.
14.1 Some simple headphonesonthe market,whichcanbe competitors,asadvertisedat
http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/17589408/JVC-HA-L50-Foldable-Light-Weight-
Stereo-Headphones-for-iPod-MP3-Black/Product.html,are lightweightheadphonesweighingonly
1.62 ounces. Our product shouldweighnomore thanthisto give a competitive advantagewithin
the market.
16.1 The majorityof suitjacketshave a pocketwhichisbigenoughto carry a checkbooksizedwallet.
Thisis the biggestitemwhichcanbe placedina suitpocketsothe product cannotbe biggerwhen
foldedorstored. Asstatedby http://www.amazon.com/Hartmann-Capital-Leather-Checkbook-
Wallet/dp/B00011SUS2,thisis an average checkbookwalletsize. The productmustfitin thisspace
envelopewhencompleted.
20.1 The productis intendedforpublicuse solarge quantitieswill be required.
22.4 The highesttemperature recorded inGlasgow is31.2 oC andthe lowestis -19oC. Howeverthe
usermay wishtouse the productwhile commutingonabusinesstripoverseassothe productneeds
to withstandagreaterheatrange and cope withBritain’schangingweatherconditions.
25.1 The productmust notcause anyfurtherdamage to the environment. Damage whichiscaused
mustbe keptto a minimum.
27.1 The productmust appeal tothe target customergroupand the price shouldcorrelate tothe
acquiredmarketresearch.

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 am neutral
 If the product provided a screw-in jack, how would you feel?
• I am neutral
 If the product doesn’t provide noise cancellation, how do you feel?
• I am neutral
 If the product provides in-line volume control, how do you feel?

• I am neutral
 If the product provides a neckband, how do you feel?
• I am neutral
 If the product provides over-ear earphones, how do you feel?
• I am neutral
 If the product provided a woven cable, how would you feel?
• I am neutral
 If the product provided good extraneous noise cancellation, how would you feel?
• I am neutral

Appendix 5 – Comparison Table – User Understanding Methods

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
EarphoneCasings Front/Back:
 Implement higher strength plastics to better protect delicate
components.
 Implement higher quality plastics to increase comfortfor user.
 Alter shape of earphones to allow for easier manipulation (inclusive
design).
Wire:
 Improveflexibility.
 Combine with other components to reduce individual seals/connections.
 Coil wire to preventtangling
Coil/Magnet/Diaphragm
 Use higher quality diaphragm material to improvesound quality.
 Use larger magnet to increasepower of audio signal.
 Reduce size of parts to reduce weight.
 Increasesizeof parts to increaseweight and create robustfeel.
Jack
 Locking systemto device.
 Thicker insulation/cover to protect internals.
 Increaseflexibility at wire/jack connection.
Headband
 Incorporategripping material to improvethe fit to users head
 Create moveable joins in headband to allow for a more effective fit
 Includerain/weather cover to increaserobustness
Unique selling points/Secondary Functions
 Addition of glow in the dark material to headband partto make user
visible (inclusivedesign)
 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

Product Development - Reflective Report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Product Development - Reflective Report

Ähnlich wie Product Development - Reflective Report (20)

Mehr von Kerrie Noble

Mehr von Kerrie Noble (20)

Product Development - Reflective Report