Examination of a Method for Determining When to Develop Transformable Products through Design Studies

Transformable products (or transformers), those with two or more functional states, are increasingly utilized by our society. As the mobility and complexity of life increases, so must the adaptability of the products which we use. To develop more adaptable products and systems, new design techniques are needed. These techniques should be developed through sound research methodologies and enhance designers abilities. Toward this end, we have developed a set of indicators which classify design problems between those for which the preferable design is a transformer, devices with multiple functional states, or a monomorph, devices with a single functional state. The indicators reveal, at an early stage in the design process, if developing a transformable product is likely to be advantageous. A novel design methodology is proposed which incorporates the indicators and has been tested at teaching institutions of higher education. Design application trials are used as a method for determining the impact of this technique on the design process. Surveys were disseminated to student teams at the educational institutions. The survey is used to explain the methodology to students and report results to our researchers. The method assesses design contexts into archetypes. Once mapped to an archetypical design problem, ideal for either transformer or monomorph design, distinct suites of concept generation tools are suggested to accelerate the design process. This process leads to high quantities and novelty of design concepts. The experiment compares the archetypical prediction with the experimental control of actualized results and intra-team consistency of design problem assessment. Based on experimental results, the indicator technique for transformer design is validated and the presented design tool is affirmed. A combined empirical and deductive design research method supports this experiment. Interactions of the experiment also provides links between undergraduate students and graduate level research processes. Introduction Products continue to integrate into our lives. Thus more and more distinctions can be made about what kinds of products are needed for various circumstances. The distinction in which we place interest is whether a preferable product is one that can transform, that is change shape and functionality, or one which maintains a consistent morphology. We want to establish design methods to ensure this distinction of needs is properly met. For most instances of design, decisions of whether to include a transformation have been made using indirect or intuitive mechanisms. We have proposed a novel method which formalizes this decision [1]. There is precedent for this type of formalization to occur. The recent development of design methodologies, or tools which aid the designer in concept generation and selection, has followed a similar progression from the intuitive to the formal [2]. Formal methods retain and broaden the designers innate artistic ability while simplifying the selection process. The experiment described in this paper investigates the effectiveness of our design method for making the decision above. The experiment also provided students with an enhanced understanding of design. A study was implemented in a mechanical engineering senior design course. The first half of the study included giving students a survey. The survey includes the method alluded to above, seen in Appendix A, for determining whether to develop a P ge 22661.2 transformable product or not. The second half of the study includes examining the solution form actually chosen by the students. We examine the correlation between prediction and embodiment. We also consider the similarity of problem description among team members. Similarity of problem description is examined to ensure that students are approaching the method from a common conceptual framework. Definitions of Transformer and Monomorph Research into transforming systems has led us to define a transformer as a system that exhibits a state change in order to facilitate a new functionality or enhance an existing functionality [2]. A state of a system is defined as a specific physical configuration in which a system performs a function [2]. Figure 1 presents several novel transformer designs. Bike Seat / Bike Lock Transformer [3] by permission TAC MAV Folding Wing Concept [2] Bat MAV Rolling Wing [2] Figure 1: Example Transformer Designs In contrast to transformers, primary function or monomorph devices, those which maintain a consistent primary geometric form to apply their essential functions, are those which do not change primary state. Devices which are monomorphs may have relative motion between components. Yet, they have no distinctive structural reorientation to modulate function. Figure 3 represents example monomorphs. These devices can be developed using traditional design methodologies such as found in texts of design methodology [4, 5, 6, and 7] Grid Ruler, Mechanical Pencil, Paper P ge 22661.3 Columns, Sign, Steps Figure 2: Example Monomorphs Transformers Methodology The measurable value of methodologies for expanding design creativity is well demonstrated in the literature [1, 2, and 4 through 14 ]. Since the use of methodologies remains emergent, there is much room for expansion and fundamental research. One such avenue to pursue is towards a technique for identifying which design problems are suited to transformable design solutions. Our previous work has seen the development of a technical design method, which proposes a response to the question: “When should a designer or design team pursue the design methods associated with developing a transformer? ” Our novel method identifies, at an early stage in the design process, when developing a transformable product is likely to be advantageous [1]. Both deductive and inductive studies were used to identify transformation indicators (TI) and monomorph indicators (MI). Respectively, these indicators identify when to create a transformer or a monomorph product, or when to consider both approaches in parallel. An Indicator, herein, is an identifiable group of characteristic context properties and usage factors. Figure 3 represents the influence of this method on the design process. Figure 3: How to Apply the Indicators for Selecting a Concept Generation Tool Suite Hypothesis and Research Questions Previous Hypothesis It is possible to indentify characteristic indicators, properties of the product usage space, functional requirements, or user needs for a given product design scenario, which sufficiently classify a design problem into one of two archetypes at an early stage. This hypothesis has been investigated through analysis and review of two related research questions. The research questions 1 and 2 encapsulate the objectives for the previous study [1]: Question 1: What context characteristics, or indicators, identify a scenario suitable for the development of a transformable device? (previously reviewed) P ge 22661.4 Question 2: What context characteristics, or indicators, identify a scenario suitable for the development of a monomorph? (previously reviewed) Current Hypothesis This classification of design context into archetype will be relevant in the sense that, it will most often represent the actual solution form ultimately chosen. If this second hypothesis is true, it follows that the designer may enhance innovation by concentrating on solution types of that particular archetype. This hypothesis is examined through research question 3: Question 3: If the indicators are present in a context, how effectively does this indication relate which solution type is preferred? (previously unaddressed) Overview of Methodology for Research The over-all research method to answer these three questions involved investigating the context surrounding existing products to determine a set of indicators for when to implement transformable solutions and a set for when to pursue monomorphs. For each indicator study, two independent studies were pursued and discussed in previous research [1]: a deductive study to test sets of hypothetical indicators; and an independent inductive study in which a population of product systems are analyzed. Figure 4 shows the research process as executed. Each deductive approach to studying the research questions hypothesizes a set of transformation indicators based on empirical studies of transformer products, patent embodiments, and systems in nature. Conversely, each inductive approach consists of sequences of functional analysis and comparison of successful transformers and monomorphs. The results of the studies are cross compared and simplified into a compact method. For this paper, the developed compact method is examined through applied design studies. Validation is symbolized in Figure 4 over the yellow background, and corresponds to the third research question above. In previous papers we have examined research questions one and two, this paper represents the culmination of the research plan in Figure 4.