• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
DART Conference Presentation
 

DART Conference Presentation

on

  • 952 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
952
Views on SlideShare
952
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Good Morning…. Name….Title…..

DART Conference Presentation DART Conference Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Understanding the needs of Industrial & Product Designers when implementing Sustainable Design Matthew Watkins Email: M.A.Watkins@lboro.ac.uk
  • Key Terms
    • Ecodesign (Design for the Environment)
    Okala (IDSA, 2005)
  • Ecodesign
    • Lifecycle considerations
      • Extraction of raw materials
      • Processing and Manufacturing
      • Transportation
      • Use
      • Disposal
  • Key Terms
    • Sustainable Design
    Okala (IDSA, 2005)
  • Environment & Designer
    • Environmental impact of a product is mostly ‘locked-in’ in the design process (Lewis et al. 2001)
    • Important for Industrial & Product designers to consider environment impact of products
    • Ecodesign tools are intended to give guidance or assessment capabilities to designers
  • Focus of Presentation
    • The problems of existing ecodesign tools?
    • What the needs of designers are in relation to implementing sustainable design?
    • How this will form an appropriateness criteria to individually evaluate existing tools.
    • Tool evaluation
    • Further work as a result of these findings.
  • Existing tools and solutions
    • There are a wide variety of tools and techniques currently in use within the product development process.
    • However these are generally considered to be unsuitable to the needs of designers.
    • With various authors commenting that the tools:
  • Problems with Existing tools
    • Require expert use by environmental scientists ( Le Pochat et al., 2007, Poyner and Simon, 1997, Baumann et al., 2002 )
    • Are designed to be used too late in the development process (Bhamra et al., 1999, Baumann et al., 2002)
    • Focus on the needs of design and production engineers rather than industrial designers (Lofthouse, 2001).
  • Problems with Existing tools
    • Too long and lengthy requiring substantial reading (Lofthouse, 2003).
    • That many tools were text based tools and overly long and or produce numerical values that have little use to designers.
    • That tools were too time consuming to enable use on a regular basis (Lofthouse, 2003).
  • Literature Survey into Designers Needs
    • Problems with existing tools could be classified as the following:
      • Presentation format of the information
      • Position within the design process
      • Usability
      • Efficiency in use
  • Literature Survey into Designers Needs
    • A literature survey was conducted to determine the specific needs of industrial and product designers.
    • Focussed on how designers think and work in a general design context.
    • From the findings of this research an appropriateness criteria was developed to evaluate several existing ecodesign tools.
  • Visual
    • A review of literature showed that:
      • Designers prefer non verbal forms of communication (Cross 2007)
      • Designers are predominately visual thinkers (Skaggs 2002, Sherwin and Evans, 2000 )
  • Presentation of information
      • Visual imagery is important to the thinking process of designers (Glegg 1969, Ferguson 1977)
      • The act of sketching is often fundamental to a designers thinking process (Lawson 2006)
  • Conceptual design
    • Its understood that the earlier environmental decisions can be made in the design process the better (Baumann et al., 2002, Bhamra et al., 1999) .
    • A widely held view but unsupported view, is that the conceptual design stage is the most beneficial phase for reducing a products impact. (Baumann et al., 2002).
  • Conceptual Design
    • Positioning the tool in the concept phase is further supported by:
    • Benefits of sketching to the designer (Lawson 2006).
    • Designers can often form attachment to an early design solution (Cross 2007)
  • Flexible Unstructured Approach
    • Literature review showed that:
      • Designers prefer to work in an ad-hoc way (Cross 2007)
      • Designers take an informal approach (Durling 1996)
      • Design is typically non hierarchical (Cross 2007)
  • Integration
      • Designers solve problems by synthesis (Cross 2007)
      • Designers are convergent thinkers (Durling 1996)
      • Designers view ecodesign as only one of many factors to consider in the design process (Richardson 2005)
  • Integration
    • Designers need to consider an increasing number of design requirements.
    • Designers need a tool that is resource efficient and aids rather than hinders.
    • Sustainable design is the first step to integration.
  • Appropriateness Criteria
    • The following criteria was developed as a result:
    • Presentation format
      • Usefulness of data and guidance
      • Predominantly visual interface
    • Position within the design process
      • Conceptual design
      • Relevance to designers role
  • Appropriateness Criteria
    • Usability
      • No prior knowledge required
      • Flexible in use
      • Rapid use by an individual
    • Integration
      • Partial assessment due to the single subject nature of ecodesign tools
      • Can it be integrated into the design process
  • Assessment Tools Greenfly Eco Indicator 99
  • Analysis Tools Ecodesign Web LiDS Wheel
  • Analysis Tools MET Matrix Design Abacus
  • Assessment Tools SortED Sima Pro
  • Results of Appropriateness Criteria Good Partial Poor SortED Eco Indicator Greenfly Sima Pro Design abacus Ecodesignweb LiDS Wheel MET Matrix Integration Usability Position Presentation Tool
  • Conclusions
    • The appropriateness criteria enabled the tools to be evaluated fairly.
    • Problem areas identified were different between tools, no common issue affected every tool.
    • Ecodesign web had the closest match partially due to its ability to its suitability in the conceptual design stage.
  • Further work
    • An online survey of industrial and product designers will be conducted, to identify:
    • When they require guidance in the design process, testing the findings of the literature review.
    • Where in the design process designers begin to use CAD.
    • The specific information needs of designers.
  • The End
    • Thank you
    • Any questions please…..
    • Updates on my research can be found on my webpage:
    • http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~cdmaw/index.htm