A Study of Conceptual Design
Process For An Ideal Design Way
2014,9/11(Thursday )-12(Friday)

WASEDA University
Graduate School of Creative Science and Engineering
Professor
Dr. Eng. Manabu Sawaguchi

Fujitsu Limited
Shintaro Ishikawa©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

1[Contents]
1. Preface
2.Outline of design process
3.Conventional process for considering design proposals
4.Design process for ideal design and the “Axiomatic
Design Theory”
5.Case study
6.Conclusion©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

21.Preface
1) The product development activity plays a pivotal role intheir corporate management for manufacturing companies.
2)The upstream stages such as product planning and design
development work is vitally important for materializing
customers’ required functions economically and also for thespeedy product development activity.
3)The purpose of this study is to consider “a conceptualdesign process” with less interference among numerous
functions required by customers and to chase ideal design.
©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

3

Aim for ideal design
・Realize required functions for customers
Improve Ideality

I=∑ RFi → ∞∑ HEi → 0・Improve inadequate required functions forcustomers
・Improve required functions for customers
・Enforce required functions for customers
・Eliminate harmful effects
・Prevent harmful effects
・Reduce harmful effects

RFi(Required Function)： Required Function i for customers
HEj (Harmful Effect)： Harmful Effect j while realizing RFi©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

42.Outline of design process
Design Process

Analysis

Task
Functional Analysis
Grasp of Customer’s Required Function(s)(Convergent Thinking)

Synthesis

Creativity
Consideration of Means to Achieve RF(s) andSynthesis to Conceptual Design Proposals(Divergent Thinking)Evaluation

Evaluation
Selection of Best Conceptual Design Proposal(Convergent Thinking)Fig.1. Three stages about design process

Spiral of DP(Design process)Evaluation

AnalysisDP-１

Synthesis

DP-１

Abstractive

DP-nSpecificAnalysis
Evaluation
DP-2

Synthesis

Synthesis

Analysis
Evaluation
DP-3

Synthesis

Analysis

Evaluation
Evaluation

SynthesisDP-nAnalysis©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

63.Conventional process for considering design
proposals
Design Process

AnalysisContents

Competitor analysis(What’s is required functions
for target customer？)

Function＜Structure
Irrationalistic
convergent thinking ：×

Trial-and-error

Synthesis

Creativity
Brain steaming(Psychological inertia )Structure-oriented thinking
Irrationalistic
Divergent thinking ：×

Trial-and-error
Not clear evaluation scale

Evaluation

Evaluation(Decide prematurely)©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

Irrationalistic
convergent thinking ：×7

Convergent and Divergent thinking

Divergent

Convergent

Createmany alternatives

Select bestalternative

Creative

LogicalThinking

Thinking©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

8

4.Design process for ideal design and the “Axiomatic
Design Theory”
Design Process for Ideal Design

Axiomatic Design Theory

Axiom1：The Independent Axiom
The independence between two or more functions, notphysical parts, shall be maintained.
Axiom2：The Information Axiom
The design with minimum content of information shall be
the best among those satisfying the Independence Axiom.

©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

10A case example about Axiom1：The Independent Axiom
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 𝐴𝐴 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷

RF：required function DP：Design parameter

Design Equation

𝐴𝐴 ：Design Matrix

RF1：take the foods in and out at refrigerator
RF2：minimize the loss of energy＜A case about decoupled design ＞

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅1
𝑋𝑋=𝑋𝑋
DP2：Adiabatic material for 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅2
door
DP1：open sideways door

0𝑋𝑋

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷1
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷2

To ideal design for realizing axiom 1＜Uncoupled design (solution of contradiction＞
DP1：horizontally-moving door
DP2：Adiabatic material for
door

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅1
𝑋𝑋=0
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅2
©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

0𝑋𝑋

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷1
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷211Axiom2：The Information Axiom
Evaluation method developed by Hiromu Nakazawa
・All features are evaluated using a common measure
called Information based on Shannon’s information theory.・IIM expands this concept to measure the difficulties(Information, energy, or effort) required to satisfy the requested
features in products design.
Information (I) for communicating the status of feature a,which is associated with probability Pa, is given as follows©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

12

Information Integration method(IIM) is based on
the concept of Shannon’s information

Probability density

Design range
Common range
System range

System parameter
Probability distribution of a system parameter©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

13Application to the evaluation method for product design
Design range
Common range
Probability density

System range

System range
Common range©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

14

5.Case study-Paper cups for hot coffee(First half )------Past analysis#1:Set up evaluation items#2:Experiment and survey condition#3:Subject of this study –paper cup#4:Compute the features’ information content#5:The evolution of paper cups from the viewpoint of resolving
contradictions(Latter half )----- New product planning for a next generating papercup#1:Interview on the present coffee cups
#2:Localization of problems#3:Idea creation by resolving contradiction#4:Effectiveness of the next generation paper cup©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

15

Past analysis(First half)#1:Set up evaluation items

#2:Experiment and survey condition

Maximum score of each sensitivity item and minimum value of Design Range#2
Adiabaticity#3 Frictional
performance#4#5Mobility #6 Ease ofAccumulating of coffee ambulation

Scoring5-point

3-point

5-point

5-point

3-point

Design Range

4.14-

4.33-

3.00-

4.14-

2.57-

#3:Subject of this study –paper cup
Table2 The features of each paper cup for hot coffee
A

Usual paper cup

BPaper cup with assist handle

C

Paper cup with lid

D

Paper cup with solo lid (lid with small hole for drinking)E

Paper cup with solo lid and insulating sleeve

F

Paper cup with solo Lid and its adverse side with embossed effect

Ideality

The pattern of increasing ideality (hypothesis)

ＥＦＤＣＢATime18

#4:Compute the features’ information content
Table3 The amount of each evaluation item’s Information for each coffee cup and its total score#1Heat#3 Frictional#4#5Mobility#2Adiabaticity
retention
performance Accumulating of coffee#6 Ease ofambulation

TotalA

1.61

∞

0.922

0∞

3.33

∞

B

1.61

0.003

1.56

0∞

∞

∞

C

0.159

∞

0.922

00∞

∞

D

0.311

∞

0.922

00.0240.381∞

E0.06900.49900.0240.381

0.97

F

0.143

3.55

0.081

00.024

0.381

4.18

#5:The evolution of paper cups from the viewpoint of resolving
contradictions

We need lid for heat retention. However,
we don’t need it for drinking
Separation in space
1. Segmentation
2. Taking Out
3. Local Quality

Make a hole on the lidHole

Improving Feature (13line) Stability of object VS
Worsening Feature(31row)Harmful side effects
27. Cheap short –living objects
35. Parameter changes
39. Inert atmosphere
40. Composite materials

Adverse side withembossed effectInsulating sleeveNew product planning for a next generating paper cup(Latter half)#1:Interview on the present coffee cups
Main problems against type E and F
Functional
number ofThe concrete contents
problems
times
It’s very hard to take off lid for pouring sugar and milk ,Ease of7
or for disposal
disassembly3
Slippery sleeve
Stability of sleeve
Putting sugar or milk in sticky coffee like cafe latte, it’s
Ease of scramble2
hard to run together each otherup
It’s very hard to run sticky liquid like café latte from
Easiness to drink
2small hole on lid.
design sensibility
1
Sleeve of corrugated paper is frumpy

#2:Localization of problems

Type F

Type E

Table5 The amount of each evaluation item’s Information for Type E and F and their total score#1
Heat
retention#2
Adiabaticity#3
Frictional
performance#4
Accumulating#5
Mobility ofcoffee#6Easiness todrink#7Ease ofdisassembly

Total

TypeE

0.069

00.49900.024

2.19

3.81

6.592

TypeF

0.143

3.55

0.081

00.024

2.19

2.34

8.328

#3:Idea creation by resolving contradiction
Idea 1
Improving Feature (17line)Temperature VS
Worsening Feature(13 row) Stability of object
1. Segmentation
32. Color Changes
35. Parameter changes

・ Hanging superior portion of inner cup on
superior portion of external cup
・Change the angle of edge of both innerand external cup.
・Use each different color to discriminate
between inner and external cup
・Use adverse side with embossed effect tobe stable to hold cup

Idea 2
Improving Feature(12line)Shape VS
Worsening Feature (22row )Waste of energy
14. Curvature
・Lid should be improved as rotary lid・Put the clamp between lid and cup

Idea 3
Improving Feature (15 line)Durability of moving
object VS Worsening Feature (31 row) Harmful sideeffects
16. Partial or excessive actions
21.Skipping
22. “Blessing in disguise
39. Inert atmosphere・Make angle to drink smoothly near
facet (hole) on the cup
・Make landing field to move liquid(coffee) smoothly to one’s mouth

#4:Effectiveness of the next generation paper cup(idea1+2+3)
Proto-type fabrication*Make angle to drink smoothly near facet(hole) on the cup*Put the clamp between lid and cup*Hanging superior portion of inner cup on
superior portion of external cup*Use adverse side with embossed effect tobe stable to hold cup©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

27

#1
Heat
retention#2
Adiabaticity#3
Frictional
performance#4
Accumulating#5
Mobility ofcoffee#6Ease ofambulation#7
Ease ofdisassembly

Total

TypeE

0.069

00.49900.024

2.19

3.81

6.592

TypeF

0.143

3.55

0.081

00.024

2.19

2.34

8.328

Newpaper
Cup

000.08100.024

1.54

1.89

3.535

6.Conclusion
IdealityAxiom2：The Information Axiom
Proto-type

3.535

Axiom1：The Independent Axiom(Solution of contradictions between
required functions)6.592

E-type8.328

F-typeTime©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

296.Conclusion
1)We made clear that axiom 1 is for solving contradictions
and axiom 2 is for reducing the amount of features’Information through analysis of paper cups(first half).
2)We made clear that ideality of proto-type is increased
through Idea generation by TRIZ(Contradiction Matrix).

3)We basically proved that proposed design process is for
direction to the idea design.

©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

30

Thank for your attention©Ｍａｎａｂｕ Ｓａｗａｇｕｃｈｉ

31