|
|
Send an Email to request a particular paper.
Back
to Main Page
This page was updated
in September 2010.
PhD Thesis
Pei, E. (2009). "Building a Common Language of
Design Representations for Industrial Designers & Engineering
Designers". (PhD Thesis). Department of Design and Technology.
Loughborough University, United Kingdom
To
achieve success in today’s competitive environment, companies
are realising the importance of design collaboration during new
product development. The aim of this research was to develop a
collaborative design tool for use by industrial designers and
engineering designers. To achieve this, a literature review was
undertaken to understand the working relationship among the two
disciplines during new product development. Following this,
empirical research through interviews and observations outlined
three problem areas: conflicts in values and principles;
differences in education; and differences in representational
tools and methods. The latter was chosen because the problem
area of design representations was found to be highly
significant. In looking at bridging differences in design
representations, a taxonomy comprising 35 forms of sketches,
drawings, models and prototypes was generated. A second stage of
empirical research was conducted to establish the popularity of
each representation and the type of design / technical
information that industrial designers and engineering designers
communicated with. The information was indexed into ‘CoLab’
cards that would enable the two disciplines to gain joint
understanding and create shared knowledge when using visual
design representations. Following a pilot evaluation and minor
modifications, student and practitioner interviews with a case
study were employed to assess the significance of CoLab. The
findings revealed that a majority of the interviewees felt that
the tool had built a common ground through having a common
understanding in use of visual design representations.
Refereed Academic
Papers
1. Evans, M.A., Pei, E. and Campbell, R.I.
(2009). "Extending Sketches, Drawings, Models and Prototypes to
Define a Taxonomy of 37 Design Representations for Improved
Communication during New Product Development" International
Conference 23 - 26 September 2009, Miami, USA
Today’s highly competitive global markets have highlighted the
importance of industrial design and engineering design
collaboration in new product development (NPD). To avoid costly
rework and to reduce development time, effective externalisation
of design concepts amongst NPD team members is crucial. The
ideas that initially take place in the form of language,
graphics or actual objects must be externalised without
unnecessary ambiguity if they are to be shared with others. The
absence of a common language and mutual understanding and the
ambiguous loosely defined nature of some representations has led
to miscommunication, misinterpretation and ineffective working
practice. The paper considers the nature of design
representations and then explores the development, structure and
content of the taxonomy of design representations that are
employed by industrial designers and engineering designers
during NPD. The taxonomy is finally appraised through a four-way
evaluation.
2. Evans, M.A., Pei, E. and Campbell, R.I.
(2009). "Two Professions Divided by an Un-common Language -
Using 'CoLab' to Improve Collaboration between Industrial
Designers and Engineering Designers" Engineering and Product
Design Education Conference Brighton, UK 10 - 11 September,
2009
As
two distinct professions working in the field of New Product
Development (NPD), difficulties encountered during collaboration
between industrial designers and engineering designers are
widespread and well documented. Having acknowledged the
challenges faced during interaction between these two
professions, a three year research programme was undertaken with
the aim of producing a tool that would remove or significantly
reduce some of the problems. Working with a PhD student, the
methodology involved a literature review; identification of
problems via practitioner interviews/observations; developing a
taxonomy of design representations (35 in total); development of
a design tool; and final validation by interviews and a design
diary. The tool comprises a set of cards divided into three
packs. The central feature of each pack is the provision of
information on the role and significance of design
representations used during NPD. When employed, the cards
facilitate the use of a common vocabulary, creating shared
knowledge and empathy towards the related yet distinct working
practices of each group. Following a pilot validation,
interviews to assess the significance of the cards were
undertaken with 29 industrial designers and 36 engineering
designers. Many of the interviewees were senior designers from
multinational companies. Having employed the cards, when asked
if the system would foster enhanced collaboration, the feedback
was overwhelmingly positive, with 68% of industrial designers
giving a positive response (27% neutral) and 63% of engineering
designers (37% neutral). This paper provides an overview of the
research methodology/outcomes and content/use of the system.
3. Evans, M.A., Pei, E. and Campbell, R.I.
(2009). ''The Development of a Design Tool to Improve
Collaboration between Industrial Designers and Engineering
Designers'', Proceedings of the Eighth European Academy of
Design International Conference, Malins, J., Robert Gordon
University, Design Connexity, Robert Gordon University, UK,
2009, pp 161-165, ISBN 978 1 901085 97 6.
The
difficulties encountered during collaboration between industrial
designers and engineering designers in New Product Development (NPD)
are widespread and well documented. Having acknowledged the
challenges faced between these two professions, the authors
undertook a three year research programme to produce a tool that
would remove or significantly reduce some of the problems.
Working with a PhD student, the methodology employed by the
research team involved a literature review; identification of
problems via practitioner interviews / observations; definition
of a taxonomy of design representations (34 in total);
development of a design tool; and final validation by interviews
and design diary. The paper describes the development and nature
of the design tool, called 'CoLab' which comprises a set of
cards divided into three packs. The central feature of each pack
is the provision of information on the role and significance of
design representations used during NPD. When employed, the cards
facilitate the use of a common vocabulary, creating shared
knowledge and empathy towards the related yet distinct working
practices of each group. Following a pilot validation and minor
modifications, interviews to assess the significance of the
cards was undertaken with 29 industrial designers and 36
engineering designers. Many of the interviewees were senior
designers from multinational companies. Having employed the
cards, when asked if the Colab system would foster enhanced
collaboration, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with
68% of industrial designers giving a positive response (27%
neutral) and 63% of engineering designers (37% neutral).
4.
Pei, E., Evans, M.A. and Campbell, R.I. (2008). ''Building a
Common Ground: The Use of Design Representation Cards for
Enhancing Collaboration between Industrial Designers and
Engineering Designers'', Proceedings of the 2008 Design Research
Society Conference, Durling, D. (ed), Sheffield Hallam
University, Undisciplined - Design Research Society Conference,
Sheffield, UK, 2008, [CD-ROM].
To
achieve success in today’s commercial environment, manufacturers
have progressively adopted collaboration strategies. Industrial
design has been increasingly used with engineering design to
enhance product competitiveness. Research between the two fields
has been limited and existing collaboration methods have not
achieved desired results. This PhD research project investigated
the level of collaboration between industrial designers and
engineering designers. The aim is to develop an integration tool
for enhanced collaboration, where a common language would
improve communication and create shared knowledge. An empirical
research using questionnaires and observations identified 61
issues between industrial designers and engineering designers.
The results were grouped and coded based on recurrence and
importance, outlining 3 distinct problem categories in
collaborative activity: conflicts in values and principles,
differences in design representation, and education differences.
A taxonomy further categorised design representations into
sketches, drawings, models and prototypes. This knowledge was
indexed into cards to provide uniform definition of design
representations with key information. This would benefit
practitioners and educators by serving as a decision-making
guide and support a collaborative working environment. A pilot
study first refined the layout and improved information access.
The final validation involving interviews with practitioners
revealed most respondents to be convinced that the tool would
provide a common ground in design representations, contributing
to enhanced collaboration. Additional interviews were sought
from groups of final-year industrial design and engineering
design students working together. Following their
inter-disciplinary experience, nearly all respondents were
certain that the cards would provide mutual understanding for
greater product success. Lastly, a case study approach tested
the cards in an industry-based project. A design diary captured
and analysed the researchers’ activities and observations on a
daily basis. It revealed positive feedback, reinforcing the
benefits of the cards for successful collaboration in a
multi-disciplinary environment.
5. Pei, E., Evans, M.A. and Campbell, R.I.
(2007). 'Them and Us?: Exploring the Collaboration between
Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers'', Proceedings of
the 2007 Industrial Designers Society of America International
Education Symposium, Cullen, C., Connecting, San Francisco, USA,
2007, pp 217-223.
In
the global marketplace, it is essential that well-designed
products are produced within the shortest possible lead times.
Manufacturers must therefore endeavour to utilize best practice
for the efficient control and management of new product
development. To enhance competitive advantage, industrial design
has been increasingly used as a strategic resource in
conjunction with collaboration with engineering design. This
study discusses the findings of empirical investigations that
recorded the nature of interaction between industrial designers
and engineering designers in practice. The research posed the
following questions: i) How and when do industrial designers and
engineering designers work together? ii) What leads to
successful or poor collaboration? iii) What factors influence
collaboration and can they be categorized? iv) Do representation
tools affect collaboration? V) What are the characteristics for
a successful tool for effective collaboration between industrial
designers and engineering designers.
6. Pei, E., Evans, M.A. and Campbell, R.I.
(2007). 'Them and Us?: Exploring the Collaboration between
Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers'', Featured
Article, ICSID (International Council of Societies of Industrial
Design) Retrieved on August 2008. http://www.icsid.org/education/education/articles491.htm
In
the global marketplace, it is essential that well-designed
products are produced within the shortest possible lead times.
Manufacturers must therefore endeavour to utilize best practice
for the efficient control and management of new product
development. To enhance competitive advantage, industrial design
has been increasingly used as a strategic resource in
conjunction with collaboration with engineering design. This
study discusses the findings of empirical investigations that
recorded the nature of interaction between industrial designers
and engineering designers in practice. The research posed the
following questions: i) How and when do industrial designers and
engineering designers work together? ii) What leads to
successful or poor collaboration? iii) What factors influence
collaboration and can they be categorized? iv) Do representation
tools affect collaboration? V) What are the characteristics for
a successful tool for effective collaboration between industrial
designers and engineering designers.
7. Pei, E., Campbell, R.I. and Evans, M.A.
(2007). ''Investigating Collaboration between Industrial
designers and Engineering Designers: A Singapore Context'',
Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on
Manufacturing Automation, Gibson, I., National University of
Singapore, The 2007 International Conference on Manufacturing
Automation, Singapore, 2007, 0, ISBN 978 981 05 8089 6,
[CD-ROM].
In
the competitive commercial environment, ‘time to market’ is a
key issue. Global markets demand well-designed products of high
quality with best possible prices and short lead times. To
facilitate this, manufacturers have adopted concurrent product
development approaches, spearheaded by collaboration strategies.
As a result, product development has seen more attempts at
greater integration activity among the disciplines of industrial
design (ID) and engineering design (ED). This paper gives an
overview of current collaboration methodologies used by industry
and investigates the level of collaboration between IDs and EDs
in the Singapore context. Empirical research through interviews
and observations outline three distinct issues in collaborative
activity, namely: conflicts in values and principles, different
tools and methods used for representation, and differences in
cross-functional education. The findings reveal a continuing gap
between ID and ED, and the authors propose several approaches
for future research. More importantly, this study highlights the
importance of design collaboration and brings to attention
current industry issues with the aim of achieving a more
effective product development process.
Journal Papers (Accepted, in press)
1. Eujin Pei, Ian R. Campbell and Mark A. Evans
(in press) "A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design
Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering
Designers" The Design Journal.
In
the context of New Product Development (NPD), research has shown
that not having a common understanding of Visual Design
Representations (VDRs) has affected collaboration between
industrial designers and engineering designers when working
together. The aim of the research presented was two-fold.
Firstly, to identify the representations employed by industrial
designers and engineering designers during NPD from a literature
survey. Secondly, to define and categorise these
representations in the form of a taxonomy that is a systematic
organisation of VDRs that are presently dispersed in the
literature. For the development of the taxonomy, four measures
encompassing orthogonality, spanning, completeness and usability
were employed. It resulted in four groups consisting of
sketches, drawings, models and prototypes. Validation was
undertaken by means of an interview survey and further
presenting the taxonomy at an international conference. The
results showed that no issues were raised by the respondents
concerning the structure of the taxonomy or its components.
2. Eujin Pei, Ian R. Campbell and Mark A. Evans
(in press) “Development of a tool for building shared
representations among industrial designers and engineering
designers” CoDesign Journal.
Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of
multi-disciplinary collaboration in New Product Development (NPD).
As such, interactions between industrial designers and
engineering designers have become increasingly important. This
research project aims to build a shared understanding between
the two disciplines during NPD. Following empirical research
that revealed collaboration-related problem areas, as well as
collecting data concerning the use of design representations, a
card system was developed to provide information on the role and
significance of design representations, leading to joint
understanding, improved communication and creation of shared
knowledge. When asked in the validation study if the system
would foster collaboration, 68.2% of industrial designers and
63.2% of the engineering designers gave a good and excellent
rating, indicating that the system could play a significant role
towards the support of multi-disciplinary teamwork.
3. Deon J de Beer, R Ian Campbell and Eujin Pei
(in press) "Additive Manufacturing in South Africa: Building on
the Foundations" Rapid Prototyping Journal
In a
previous Rapid Prototyping Journal paper, the authors reviewed
the first decade of Rapid Prototyping (RP) use within the
Republic of South Africa (RSA). The paper analysed its
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and proposed a
“road-map” for future development. Much has happened in the
intervening years since that article was published and this
paper seeks to update readers on the current situation in RSA.
In particular, it reports the extensive development of research
in the field of RP and Additive Manufacturing (AM).
Journal Papers (Accepted with amendments)
1. Eujin Pei, Ian R.
Campbell and Deon J. de Beer (Accepted with amendments) “Entry
Level 3D Printers: How Well Can They Cope with Geometric
Complexity?” Journal of Assembly Automation
According to Graham, the use of 3D Printers (3DP) has enabled a
more efficient process of New Product Development (NPD). 3DP is
a relatively affordable, effective and fast approach for
producing sample parts for products and moulds that allow
members of a multi-disciplinary team to see, interact, clarify
and evaluate the design. Ideas can be vigorously tested since
developers are able to fabricate parts to the required
resolution. Despite the increased popularity of 3DPs, very
little research on entry level systems has been conducted. The
purpose of this paper is to examine and assess the limitations
of using entry level 3D printers when fabricating objects with
high complexity. A literature review provides an overview of
different levels of complexity in objects. The paper continues
with a discussion on the definition of entry level rapid
prototyping, followed by a number of experimental trials to
investigate the limitations of a specific entry level 3D printer
when fabricating increasingly complex objects. From the
experiments, it was found that the Rapman 3D printing system
produced low-resolution models that were often prone to warping.
It was also observed that although support structures could be
built, the interwoven layers made their removal difficult. The
paper highlights the limitations of entry level 3D printers and
designers should bear these restrictions in mind when
fabricating large surface areas or when incorporating support
structures within a recess.
Send an Email to request a particular paper.
Back
to Main Page
|
